[0:03] Okay. Hello everyone. Um, I'm calling
[0:06] the regular meeting of the Rosstown
[0:08] Council Thursday, August 13, 2026
[0:11] to order.
[0:13] Town Manager Johnson, has the agenda
[0:16] been posted?
[0:18] >> Yes, Mayor, it has. And we uh staff is
[0:21] requesting a um slight change to the
[0:24] agenda. We'd like to move the third
[0:26] design review item which is number 17
[0:31] regarding 18 Sir Francis Drake. We'd
[0:33] like to move it uh to the um up to after
[0:37] 9B.
[0:39] So it would be the third design review
[0:41] item in a row. Some things have been
[0:43] worked out so we think it can be go
[0:44] through pretty quickly.
[0:45] >> Great. Does anyone have any objection to
[0:47] that?
[0:50] >> Okay. Thank you. Disclosure of exparte
[0:53] communications on items where the town
[0:56] council acts in an adjudicatory or quas
[0:59] judicial capacity. Anything to disclose?
[1:03] >> Hi, Bill.
[1:04] >> Yes. Hi, Julie.
[1:06] >> Number four, open time for public
[1:08] expression. This is limited to three
[1:10] minutes per speaker on Wait, do I need
[1:14] to ask Bill where he is and why he's not
[1:16] here?
[1:17] >> No. Okay, great. Yes, I'm Should I make
[1:20] a statement? I'm in Seattle. That's why
[1:24] I'm not attending. I am at 441
[1:27] University Street, Seattle, which is a
[1:29] Fairmont Olympic Hotel. And there is I
[1:32] am in room 358. And there is no one here
[1:35] with me.
[1:37] >> Thank you, Belle. So, we'll be um
[1:39] calling um roll call for the votes. All
[1:43] right. Number four, open time for public
[1:45] expression. This is limited to three
[1:46] minutes per speaker on item items not on
[1:49] the agenda. Anyone in the chamber for
[1:52] public comment?
[2:10] Dear Mayor and M Mc McMillan and Ross
[2:13] town council members, first of all,
[2:16] please agendaize FOR's restitution to
[2:18] the town of Ross over its failed,
[2:20] flawed, and ultimately withdrawn ballot
[2:22] initiative.
[2:23] I am speaking tonight to address a grave
[2:25] concern regarding the integrity of our
[2:27] upcoming town elections. The friends of
[2:29] Ross Firehouse for originally
[2:31] established a as a ballot measure
[2:33] committee has transitioned into a
[2:35] political machine that is leveraging its
[2:37] resources to provide an unfair advantage
[2:40] to two specific candidates, Bob Herz and
[2:43] Paul Rosler. The toothpaste is out of
[2:46] the tube, so to speak. Forth has
[2:48] utilized its mass mailing list, a list
[2:50] compiled from residents who signed a
[2:52] petition or donated to save our local
[2:54] fire station to now and for the next 80
[2:56] plus days broadcasting endorsements from
[2:59] Mr. Herps and Mr. Rosler. This email
[3:01] list was not obtained through legitimate
[3:03] campaign purchase. It was harvested
[3:05] under the guise of a single issue civic
[3:08] initiative. As a donor myself, I can
[3:11] state clearly that my contribution was
[3:12] intended to support public safety, not
[3:15] for political engineering.
[3:17] Because Mr. Herp serves as president of
[3:19] FORF, he and Mr. Rossler have exclusive
[3:21] access to this database of engaged
[3:23] voters. Other candidates in the race do
[3:25] not have the same access, creating a
[3:27] fundamentally unlevel playing field.
[3:29] This with pardon me, creating a
[3:32] fundamentally unlevel playing field.
[3:34] This use of specialized voter data
[3:36] without the explicit consent of our
[3:38] citizens on the list and without parody
[3:40] for other candidates undermines the
[3:42] democratic process in Ross. I ask the
[3:45] council to consider the following points
[3:47] regarding the situation. First,
[3:49] potential campaign finance violations.
[3:52] The council should con inquire whether
[3:55] the mass communications constitute a
[3:57] coordinated campaign contribution to the
[3:59] Herps and Rosler campaigns rather than
[4:01] an independent expenditure.
[4:04] transparency and data acquisition. There
[4:06] must be a full public disclosure
[4:07] regarding how force email list was
[4:09] acquired and compiled and whether its
[4:11] use for candidate advocacy complies with
[4:13] the FPPC mass electronic and disclosure
[4:16] rules. Finally, restoration of fairness.
[4:19] We need to understand who authorized,
[4:20] wrote, and distributed these endorsement
[4:22] emails and whether these two candidates
[4:25] participated in those decisions as this
[4:28] changes the legal characterization of
[4:29] the organizational organization
[4:31] spending. The residents of Ross deserve
[4:34] an election this November that is
[4:36] transparent and fair. As Ross citizens,
[4:38] we did not provide our contact
[4:40] information to a ballot measure
[4:41] committee so they can be weaponized by
[4:43] force officers for their own political
[4:45] gain. I urge the council and town
[4:48] attorney to investigate these
[4:49] discrepancy to ensure our local
[4:51] governments remains unc accountable to
[4:53] the facts and its citizenry and
[4:55] therefore allow the other two candidates
[4:57] similar access to townwide email list.
[5:00] Michael Rosenbound, 14 Avenue.
[5:04] >> Thank you. Anyone else?
[5:08] >> Hello.
[5:13] » We'll see if I'm doing it right. Did I
[5:15] do good this time? I'll even introduce
[5:18] myself.
[5:20] I'm Diane Redden, 39 Willow Avenue. Good
[5:23] evening, everyone. And I just want to
[5:25] say that we had an age friendly meeting
[5:28] here
[5:29] this afternoon or this morning really
[5:32] and we talked about the intercom system
[5:34] and we're all for it and um you know
[5:39] here here and uh we have a couple things
[5:42] planned
[5:44] going forward for age friendly but what
[5:46] we're trying to do is get the word out
[5:49] to Kentfield
[5:51] and invite them into our age friendly
[5:53] group and If anybody has any brilliant
[5:55] ideas on how to do that, I would love to
[5:58] hear because the post office there is
[6:00] only is not open until 10:00 in the
[6:03] morning. So, and not very many people
[6:05] use that post office. It's not like
[6:06] ours. So, besides Woodland Market, I do
[6:09] not have
[6:11] any way to get a hold of those people.
[6:16] » Thank you. Anyone else in the chamber?
[6:20] Anyone online, Zach?
[6:21] >> No one online. Mayor,
[6:24] >> thank you. So, the mayor's report, um,
[6:27] we had a special council meeting on
[6:29] August 4 to first retain Gendzer
[6:33] Architects who prepared the citizens
[6:35] advisory committee's gorgeous conceptual
[6:38] concept presented April 29. Earlier this
[6:41] week, staff had a kickoff meeting with
[6:43] Gensler to begin the process of amending
[6:45] the facilities master plan and
[6:48] developing other information, including
[6:50] costs. The goal is to complete this by
[6:52] late October to allow for a general
[6:54] obligation bond election in 2027. We
[6:58] will be holding frequent council
[6:59] meetings to inform the public, gather
[7:02] public comment, and make decisions. At
[7:04] that meeting, we also accepted the
[7:06] withdrawal of the fourth initiative from
[7:08] the November 3rd, 2026 ballot that would
[7:11] have compelled the town to have an
[7:13] operating fire station within town
[7:15] limits with no associated funding.
[7:18] Finally, we approved and signed the
[7:20] ballot argument to renew the Ross Valley
[7:22] Paramedic Authority parcel tax, which
[7:25] will be called Measure U, starting in
[7:28] fiscal year 2728 at $107.50
[7:32] per year, adjusted up to $4 per year for
[7:36] four years.
[7:38] On July 27, there was a small vegetation
[7:40] fire in Mil Valley between Hillside
[7:43] Avenue and the Bleedale Ridge called the
[7:45] Hillside Fire. It was contained quickly
[7:48] at 1.5 acres due to fast emergency
[7:51] responses and effective vegetation
[7:53] management in the area. There were
[7:55] robust responses from 11 fire engines
[7:59] including from Southern Marin fire,
[8:01] Marin County Fire, two Tamilas Tamas
[8:05] fire crews and Calire along with mutual
[8:08] aid from Tibberon and Central Marin
[8:10] fire. Three battalion chiefs, four
[8:13] aircraft, one CalFire air attack plane
[8:16] from Santa Rosa serving as the air
[8:18] traffic controller, two CalFire air
[8:21] tankers, one from Santa Rosa and one
[8:23] from Mendescino, making one drop a fire
[8:26] retardant. The PG& funded firefighting
[8:29] Blackhawk helicopter stationed at
[8:31] Nosfield in Neado, arriving seven
[8:34] minutes after dispatch and making seven
[8:36] water drops sourced from Cord Madera and
[8:38] Phoenix Lake. a transport dozer carrying
[8:42] a bulldozer, two water tenders, each
[8:45] carrying 2,00 to 2500 gallons of water,
[8:48] Mil Valley Police, and one paramedic
[8:51] ambulance. The fire moved at a slow rate
[8:54] of spread through vegetation that had
[8:56] been treated by Southern Marin Fire and
[8:58] the Marin Wildfire Prevention Authority.
[9:01] Southern Marin Fire believes the
[9:02] firereak work and other preventative
[9:04] measures in the area over the past
[9:06] several years help limit the fire
[9:08] spread. And then I have a link to um a
[9:12] note from Southern Marine Fire about
[9:14] other preparation that they did back to
[9:17] school. It's hard to believe that summer
[9:20] is ending and school is already
[9:22] starting. Ross school begins next week
[9:24] on August 19 and Branson classes begin
[9:26] on August 24. Finally, live on the
[9:30] comments thanks to RPOA and the town
[9:32] will be next Friday, August 21st with
[9:35] Super Diamond, a Neil Diamond tribute
[9:38] band, Come Here, Sweet Caroline, and
[9:42] other classic Neil Diamond hits,
[9:47] council committee, and liaison reports.
[9:49] Anybody?
[9:52] >> Uh, just a report from the post office
[9:54] today. Um the most the main concern that
[9:57] I heard was um a concern about the
[10:01] number of vehicles uh in the street when
[10:04] there are building projects. And
[10:06] specifically there were two building
[10:08] projects in this one neighborhood um as
[10:11] the neighborhood of Ames and um a
[10:14] request that when we um uh issue permits
[10:18] that we pay attention to conditions for
[10:21] parking.
[10:23] I think that still doesn't help if you
[10:24] have three cement trucks at one time,
[10:27] but uh but we can do our best trying to
[10:29] make sure there's a parking and and
[10:31] construction plan.
[10:36] » Anybody else? Bill, do you have
[10:38] anything?
[10:39] >> No, I don't.
[10:40] >> Okay. Staff and community reports. Um
[10:43] Ross Property Owners Association.
[10:53] Okay,
[10:54] good evening. My name is Peter Solar. I
[10:56] live at uh 15 West Road here in Moss and
[11:00] I'm representing the RPOA tonight. This
[11:03] is just to give an update for the month.
[11:05] Uh first and foremost, want to thank you
[11:08] for the uh contribution of uh 25,500
[11:12] from the town. That's that's uh that's
[11:14] been that was submitted in July and it's
[11:16] already been cashed. We appreciate it.
[11:18] Obviously, uh as you mentioned though,
[11:21] we are uh uh hosting a live on the
[11:24] commons event on the 21st of August. The
[11:27] entertainment will be Super Diamond uh
[11:30] which is a Neil Diamond um cover band.
[11:33] There will be uh uh food trucks and
[11:36] activities for kids and also the
[11:39] obviously all the restaurants that are
[11:40] in the area benefit from this. So,
[11:42] they're super excited.
[11:44] We are uh we're hosting a a candidates
[11:46] night coming up. We're in the process of
[11:48] trying to find a venue and a uh a Zoom
[11:52] coordinator. This will happen sometime
[11:54] in October.
[11:57] So, more more to come on that. Uh you
[12:00] may notice when you go to the Ross prop
[12:02] uh post office, we have new lights and
[12:05] um we think that's been a we get a lot
[12:07] of compliments so far and and we we're
[12:09] really appreciative of that. Uh we're
[12:11] looking at potentially uh either fixing
[12:14] up the lights in the back or potentially
[12:16] replacing those. So we're in the process
[12:18] of of figuring out what's the best uh
[12:21] solution there. We'll get back to you on
[12:23] that. Uh there's also an age friendly um
[12:28] uh tour of Bucks Institute on September
[12:31] 22nd coming up.
[12:34] And then um
[12:36] the last couple things we did um uh Ross
[12:41] Auxiliary just announced two new
[12:43] co-presidents, Gabrielle Gantis and
[12:46] Taylor Porter.
[12:48] And then the last thing is obviously the
[12:50] flowers that are on um near the common.
[12:53] They're doing great and we're continuing
[12:55] to watering those and maintaining all
[12:56] that all the plants that are in that
[12:57] area. So that's it. Thank you.
[13:00] >> Great. Thank you. And I understand you
[13:02] had a meeting Monday. I'm sorry I missed
[13:04] it. I did not receive an email or or the
[13:07] agenda, so I'm sorry I wasn't there.
[13:08] >> There was a meeting today,
[13:10] >> Monday night, our POA. Yeah. Thank you.
[13:14] >> Um, town manager Johnson. Uh, thank you.
[13:18] Um, good evening, Mayor and Council
[13:19] members. I'd like to welcome back our
[13:21] recreation manager, Moren Borthwick,
[13:23] from Family Leave. She is zooming into
[13:25] the meeting tonight from her home. And
[13:28] I'd also like to give a big thank you to
[13:30] our two other wreck employees who really
[13:33] gave them gave it their all and um held
[13:36] down the fort. So that would include um
[13:37] recreation clerk u Mallerie Baron who um
[13:40] doubled her hours in order to assist the
[13:44] recreation department in the town
[13:46] continue to provide um excellent
[13:47] customer service to residents. And I'd
[13:50] like to give a big thank you to Wyatt
[13:52] Man who so abley served as interim wreck
[13:54] manager since last April and through a
[13:57] very busy um time of the year for
[14:00] programming and events for the
[14:02] department. Wyatt is here this evening
[14:04] and I hope we can all congratulate him
[14:06] and thank him for a job well done.
[14:15] Uh, in other staffing news, yes, the
[14:17] dreaded day arrived and our esteemed
[14:20] public works director, Rich Simonich,
[14:22] left us for retirement. On day 10, we
[14:26] are surviving, but definitely feel his
[14:29] absence. Thankfully, our civic center
[14:32] project manager, David Kelly, agreed to
[14:35] fill in as interim director, and we were
[14:37] able to hire a knowledgeable consultant,
[14:39] John Mo, to handle the town engineer
[14:43] functions, that portion of um the
[14:46] director position. This week, our town
[14:48] clerk, Zach, and I started a robust
[14:51] recruitment process with a professional
[14:54] HR firm, which will hopefully, fingers
[14:56] crossed, result in interviews in mid
[14:59] October. So, we are going to have this
[15:01] interim period where we're just all
[15:04] doing our best to work together as a
[15:06] team to address resident um issues and
[15:10] also prepare for what is uh projected to
[15:13] be a very wet winter. Um, and that also
[15:16] includes Anthony and Zach, our other
[15:18] Zach in the um public works department
[15:21] to prepare for the the rainy season.
[15:26] Uh, from the police department, as the
[15:28] mayor mentioned, RAW school starts on
[15:29] Tuesday with Branson School soon after,
[15:32] and we would like to remind the
[15:33] community to remember to share the road
[15:35] with bicyclists and children walking to
[15:38] school. Ross PD officers will be
[15:41] enforcing traffic laws. Please plan
[15:43] ahead and give yourself plenty of time.
[15:46] If your child rides a bike to school,
[15:48] please have a conversation about
[15:50] following the rules of the road.
[15:53] The filing period closed yesterday for
[15:56] residents wishing to run for election to
[15:58] the town council. There are four four
[16:01] candidates.
[16:03] The um advisory design review um group
[16:06] meeting this month will be held on
[16:09] Tuesday, August 25th at 6 p.m. in the
[16:13] council chambers. That's a change of
[16:15] their usual time and it's to allow for a
[16:17] quorum so they can meet. Um, and
[16:20] speaking of quorum, um, due to a, uh, we
[16:23] will we will have an absence on a
[16:26] vacancy on the ADR and, uh, the Ross
[16:29] Council is seeking a volunteer to fill
[16:31] one opening on ADR for a three-year
[16:34] term. Serving on the ADR is a unique
[16:38] experience to make a positive
[16:40] contribution to the design and
[16:42] appearance of the community and help
[16:45] neighbors come together on development
[16:48] issues. The application is available
[16:50] online and the due date to apply has
[16:53] been extended to August 24th. We would
[16:56] like to thank the current ADR members
[16:59] that have worked to make the ADR group a
[17:01] helpful forum for providing staff
[17:04] applicants and the town council with
[17:06] feedback during the development review
[17:08] process. Mark Krishnet, the chair, he's
[17:11] the outgoing member. Um Joey Buckingham,
[17:14] Mark Fritz, Steven Sutro, and Laura Der.
[17:17] We give them big thanks for all their
[17:19] work they do throughout the year. And um
[17:21] just finally,
[17:23] I'm going to be going uh back and forth
[17:25] between my office and zooming in. I have
[17:27] a a cough and I don't want to be any
[17:29] more distracting to the council. So
[17:31] that's what Don't be alarmed. I'll be
[17:34] coming back in. Um and that's it. Thank
[17:36] you for the opportunity to report.
[17:40] >> Thank you. Consent agenda. Does any
[17:43] member of the public wish to remove any
[17:45] item from the consent agenda?
[17:48] Anybody online?
[17:50] >> No one online. Mayor,
[17:51] >> any council member want to remove
[17:53] something? Okay. Could we please have a
[17:55] motion to approve the consent agenda?
[17:58] >> I'll move that we con uh approve the
[18:00] consent calendar.
[18:02] >> Second.
[18:05] » Motion by council member Dalling. Second
[18:07] by Mayor Prom Robbins.
[18:09] >> Yes.
[18:10] >> Mayor McMillan.
[18:11] >> Yes. Mayor Potm Robbins,
[18:13] >> yes.
[18:13] >> Council member Kercher,
[18:16] >> yes.
[18:16] >> Council member Dalling,
[18:17] >> yes.
[18:18] >> Council member Salter,
[18:19] >> yes.
[18:19] >> Motion passes unanimously.
[18:22] >> Thank you.
[18:24] We are moving on to the public hearing
[18:26] on planning projects 92 Glenwood Avenue,
[18:31] design review, nonconformity permit, and
[18:33] demolition permit, and town council
[18:35] consideration of adoption of resolution
[18:37] number 2645 approving the project.
[18:40] subject to conditions. Roberta,
[18:44] >> Alex.
[18:45] >> Good evening, mayor and council members.
[18:47] Uh, tonight the applicant at 92 Glenwood
[18:49] Avenue is requesting town council's
[18:51] consideration for designer view and a
[18:54] demolition permit. Uh, the project is
[18:56] proposing to replace the existing
[18:57] stuckle with cedar shingles throughout
[19:00] the exterior of the house. Uh during the
[19:02] meeting at the uh at the ADR meeting
[19:04] July 21st, all the 80 members were in
[19:07] support of the project and staff request
[19:09] that the town council consider adopting
[19:11] resolution 2645 approving design review
[19:14] and a demolition permits
[19:18] » questions from council.
[19:21] >> No.
[19:23] >> Um went away. Bill, are you still there?
[19:34] He's still online. Mayor,
[19:35] >> he is.
[19:36] >> Yeah, his camera's just off.
[19:37] >> Okay, great. All right. Um,
[19:40] does anyone um from the public wish to
[19:43] make a statement?
[19:46] Anyone online?
[19:48] Does the applicant wish to make any
[19:50] statement?
[19:53] Okay, then we'll bring it back for um
[19:56] discussion and a motion, please.
[19:58] >> So, I just add a comment. We got a
[19:59] letter about the shingles. Um but the um
[20:03] the owner showed me the shingles. They
[20:05] have they're they're CalFire approved
[20:07] and they have some special backing. So I
[20:09] think that it's fine to go ahead with
[20:11] this.
[20:12] >> Yeah. Robera, did you want to add
[20:13] anything to that?
[20:14] >> That's correct. It's CalFire and WOOI
[20:17] approved. So in terms of if you see the
[20:20] shingles, what you're really want to
[20:22] look at is the assembly. Um there should
[20:25] be other
[20:27] uh fire resistant backings
[20:32] connected to that siding. That way if
[20:34] the shingles burn off there is something
[20:36] that stops burning.
[20:40] » Great. Um any further discussion?
[20:44] >> I move we approve a resolution
[20:48] uh 2645.
[20:51] >> A second.
[20:53] Motion by Mayor Prom Robbins, second by
[20:55] council member Dalling. Mayor McMillan,
[20:57] >> yes.
[20:58] >> Mayor Prom Robbins,
[20:59] >> yes.
[20:59] >> Council member Kercher,
[21:01] >> yes.
[21:02] >> Council member Dalling,
[21:03] >> yes.
[21:03] >> Council member Salter,
[21:04] >> yes.
[21:05] >> Motion passes unanimously.
[21:08] >> And we're moving on to 98 Laurel Grove
[21:10] Avenue. Design review and nonconformity
[21:12] permit and town council consideration of
[21:14] adoption of resolution number 2646
[21:17] approving the project subject to
[21:20] conditions. Uh good evening, mayor,
[21:22] council members. Uh tonight, the
[21:23] applicant at 98 L Grove is requesting
[21:26] town council's consideration for design
[21:28] review and a nonconformity permit. The
[21:31] project is proposing to expand the
[21:33] existing guest house by 396 ft. Uh
[21:37] increasing the total floor area for that
[21:38] guest house from 38 385 ft to 781 ft.
[21:45] The project also includes a new trellis,
[21:47] a patio, and retaining walls. At the ADR
[21:50] meeting on July 21st, all the AD ADR
[21:53] members were in support of the project
[21:55] since the project is not exacerbating
[21:58] the existing nonconformity.
[22:00] Staff request that the town council will
[22:02] consider adopting resolution 2646
[22:05] approving design review and a
[22:06] non-conformity permit. Thank you.
[22:09] >> Council member questions?
[22:12] No.
[22:14] Um, any comment from the public on this
[22:16] item?
[22:19] Um, does the applicant wish to make a
[22:21] statement? You certainly don't have to.
[22:24] >> Thank you.
[22:26] We like that.
[22:29] Okay. Um, we'll bring it back for any
[22:32] further discussion or a motion.
[22:34] >> I move that we adopt resolution number
[22:37] 2646.
[22:39] Second.
[22:41] >> Motion by council member Ding. Second by
[22:43] Mayor Prom Robbins. Mayor McMillan.
[22:46] >> Yes.
[22:46] >> Mayor Prom Robbins.
[22:48] >> Yes.
[22:48] >> Council member Kercher.
[22:50] >> Yes.
[22:50] >> Council member Dowling.
[22:51] >> Yes.
[22:52] >> Council member Salter.
[22:53] >> Yes.
[22:53] >> Motion passes unanimously.
[22:56] >> Thank you. Now we're moving on to 17A,
[23:00] which we're taking a little bit out of
[23:02] order. um
[23:06] which is 18 Sir Francis Drake Boulevard
[23:09] design review nonconformity permit
[23:12] demolition permit and a variance and
[23:14] town council consideration of adoption
[23:16] of resolution number 2644 approving the
[23:20] project subject to conditions
[23:23] mayor council members uh tonight the uh
[23:26] applicant and homeowner at 18 sir
[23:28] Francis Drake is requesting town
[23:30] council's consideration for designer
[23:32] view demolition permit, a nonconformity
[23:34] permit, and a variance. The project is
[23:37] proposing to renovate the existing
[23:38] residence by replacing the existing
[23:40] sighting with horizontal cedar sighting
[23:43] with also stone veneer base. Additional
[23:46] site improvements include reconfiguring
[23:48] and reduction of a swimming pool, the
[23:50] relocation of a equipment, construction
[23:52] of a new patio, and a new gravel
[23:54] driveway. Uh at the ADR meeting on June
[23:57] 16th, the ADR members were in support of
[23:59] the project with minor modifications. Uh
[24:02] the members recommended that the patio
[24:04] be located 5 ft from the side property
[24:06] line uh to use dark a darker base
[24:09] material and also more of a natural
[24:11] color palette. The applicant revised the
[24:14] plans accordingly and also the members
[24:16] also supported the pool equipment's lo
[24:18] relocation because of the proximity to
[24:21] Sir Francis Drake. Uh staff request that
[24:23] the town council consider adopting
[24:25] resolution 2644 approving designer
[24:27] review a non-conformity permit
[24:29] demolition permit and a variance.
[24:33] >> Questions council members?
[24:36] >> Um any public comment on this item?
[24:43] » My name is Mark Converse. I'm a neighbor
[24:45] at 18 franch. I just want to clarify I
[24:48] talked to Alex that was that was the
[24:51] item on the the design review was a
[24:53] three-unit building and that's been
[24:55] rescended to a two-un building. I just
[24:56] want to confirm that's the case for
[24:58] public record, right?
[25:00] >> Uh that's correct.
[25:01] >> Okay. And then the the other
[25:03] improvements like there's going to be
[25:05] other stuff done as we discussed that'll
[25:07] be further permits, right? For instance,
[25:10] excavation permits and those kind of
[25:11] things, right? Because there's some
[25:14] other like for instance there's a
[25:15] there's not not been a geotech survey
[25:17] done and that would be part of the
[25:18] building permits. That's is that
[25:20] correct?
[25:21] >> That would be submitted during the
[25:22] building permits.
[25:23] >> During the Okay. All right. That's it.
[25:25] We support the project. It's it's well
[25:26] overdue.
[25:27] >> Thank you. Do you want to state your
[25:28] name?
[25:29] >> Um Mark Converse and I live at 16. Thank
[25:32] you very much. Next door. Thank you. Any
[25:34] other public comment?
[25:37] Um does the applicant wish to make a
[25:39] statement? Are they online?
[25:44] Ross. It's Ross McKenna.
[25:47] >> Yes. Um,
[25:48] >> you don't have
[25:49] >> Ross or Studio J.
[25:52] I love both of you to talk.
[25:58] » Hi. Can anyone hear me? This is Richard
[26:00] from Studio J Architecture.
[26:01] >> Yeah. Hi, we hear you.
[26:03] >> Okay, great. Hi. Um, nothing really to
[26:06] add other than uh confirming the
[26:08] conditions of approval for the flat roof
[26:11] um for the neighbor on the other side.
[26:14] Um, otherwise I think if everyone's
[26:18] uh approves the project, we'd like to
[26:20] move forward and uh that's all.
[26:25] >> Thank you.
[26:27] >> Okay. Well, we'll move it back to
[26:30] council for any discussion or a motion.
[26:34] Well, I move that we adopt resolution
[26:36] number 2644.
[26:40] Second
[26:42] >> motion by council member Dowling, second
[26:44] by Mayor Prom Robbins. Mayor McMillan,
[26:46] >> yes.
[26:47] >> Mayor Prom Robbins,
[26:48] >> yes.
[26:49] >> Council member Kercher,
[26:50] >> yes.
[26:51] >> Council member Dowling,
[26:52] >> yes.
[26:52] >> Council member Salter,
[26:54] >> yes.
[26:54] >> Motion passes unanimously.
[26:57] >> Thank you. Now we're moving to the
[26:59] administrative agenda item number 10.
[27:09] town council to receive a presentation
[27:11] from team civex regarding the planning,
[27:14] evaluation, public information, and
[27:17] community engagement process associated
[27:19] with potential local revenue measures
[27:22] and discuss how these services may
[27:24] assist the town as it continues
[27:26] evaluating potential financing options
[27:28] for implementation of the Ross Civic
[27:30] Center facilities master plan and
[27:33] related municipal capital improvements.
[27:37] Christa,
[27:39] >> thank you. Thank you, mayor. Um the item
[27:41] before you this evening is um uh we are
[27:44] continuing our council education series
[27:47] related to the town's civic center
[27:49] redevelopment project. You may recall
[27:52] that on April 2nd, the council received
[27:54] a presentation from Fieldman Rolap, the
[27:57] town's municipal financial adviser,
[27:59] regarding the town's financial
[28:01] condition, budget outlook, and capacity
[28:04] to support debt service associated with
[28:07] implementation of the facility's master
[28:08] plan. And then on July 9th, the council
[28:11] received a presentation regarding
[28:14] alternative project delivery and
[28:16] procurement methods for implementation
[28:18] of the Ross Civic Center project and
[28:20] also discussed the town's priorities
[28:22] regarding project delivery, procurement,
[28:25] schedule, cost certainty, and risk
[28:27] allocation.
[28:29] In the third part of this educational
[28:31] series, Joy Kumer
[28:34] partner with a firm called Team Civics
[28:37] will give the council a presentation
[28:39] providing an initial overview of the
[28:41] feasibility and process for a potential
[28:44] local funding measure, including the
[28:46] available election timing, key strategic
[28:50] considerations, and recommended next
[28:52] steps and decision points. Thank you.
[29:07] Oh, there we go. I'm so sorry.
[29:09] >> Oh, excuse me, Joy. Let's just give us
[29:11] Could you just give us a second to make
[29:12] sure we get your
[29:13] >> Oh, yes.
[29:20] » No, no.
[29:23] >> It'll take a moment.
[29:29] Pardon me.
[29:59] The challenge is always getting the Zoom
[30:02] to
[30:04] combine with the PowerPoint. So, thank
[30:06] you for your patience.
[30:16] Okay.
[30:20] We'll try this again.
[30:23] There we go.
[30:26] Uh again, Joykum. I'm one of the
[30:28] partners at Team Civics. We are a
[30:32] communication and election strategy
[30:34] firm.
[30:37] » Oh, thank you. Thank you. Oh, perfect.
[30:41] Uh and we now have a presentation. Um, I
[30:45] work with cities, school districts,
[30:47] counties, um, and other public entities
[30:50] as they review the process to place a
[30:52] potential measure on the ballot. Um, we
[30:54] look at exploring feasibility. So,
[30:57] tonight I'm just here to talk a little
[30:59] bit about uh, past election trends in
[31:02] the town of Ross, as well as looking
[31:04] forward at potential opportunities that
[31:06] might be available and some things to be
[31:08] thinking about as you consider that.
[31:13] work.
[31:14] >> So, just a little bit about the
[31:16] facilities master planning timing. Uh,
[31:18] we know that you're in the process of
[31:19] completing the facilities master plan
[31:22] amendment. Uh, looking at that project
[31:24] scope and the costs that are being uh,
[31:27] determined and associated with that, I
[31:29] had an opportunity to take a look at
[31:30] some of the previous materials. Um,
[31:33] potential funding options that are
[31:35] available to uh, help with that project.
[31:39] And then tonight again I'm just here to
[31:41] talk about the planning and process and
[31:43] election timing.
[31:46] So a little bit about our firm. Uh we
[31:48] are one of the leaders in helping
[31:50] prepare and uh help cities pass
[31:52] potential um tax revenue measures. We
[31:56] have an over 90% success rate um on all
[32:00] sorts of measures all around the state
[32:01] of California. We're often known as good
[32:03] team players. uh we sort of work well
[32:06] with the other existing people on your
[32:08] team as you're moving forward. Um uh we
[32:11] work with Fieldman quite often in cities
[32:14] around the state as they're doing the
[32:16] financial advisor part of it and we're
[32:18] helping with the communications. Um our
[32:21] emphasis is really on customer service
[32:23] and responsiveness. I come to meetings.
[32:26] I actually live in Oakland so it's not a
[32:28] bad drive for me. Uh we really try to
[32:31] pay attention. I know how ballot
[32:33] measures work. I know about election
[32:35] timing, but you know your community. So,
[32:37] it is always a team effort and that's
[32:40] important that we're working together.
[32:42] And of course, we always have individual
[32:44] attention from each of our partners. So,
[32:46] I would always be the point person
[32:48] working with your town.
[32:53] So, I have many slides on your past
[32:56] elections
[32:57] >> and they're just looking at the data in
[33:00] different ways so that we can glean some
[33:03] information about how elections have
[33:04] gone in the past. This is just meant to
[33:07] be a big picture historical. Um, your
[33:11] general overall passage rate for items
[33:13] in the town are at about 78%.
[33:17] uh in the general elections. So those
[33:19] are your November elections in even
[33:22] numbered years that passage rate uh is
[33:24] at 100%. Primary elections 75%.
[33:29] You can see five of your um elections
[33:32] were in November, two in June, two in
[33:34] March. They've most frequently been on
[33:36] the November elections.
[33:38] That's why we see such a higher
[33:40] percentage of passage rate. Um,
[33:44] overall, the other thing to consider in
[33:46] each of these different types of
[33:48] elections is your turnout. So, you'll
[33:51] notice the first line down, we start
[33:53] talking about turnout in those primary
[33:55] elections. So, those are typically March
[33:58] or June elections. Turnout is lower. And
[34:01] this is a trend we see all across
[34:03] California. Uh, voters turn out in lower
[34:05] numbers in primary elections. In your
[34:08] general election turnout, uh we see it
[34:11] around 76%. Again, that's an average. Um
[34:16] your next two bars down, we're just
[34:19] talking about passage rate. So again,
[34:21] kind of looking at general picture over
[34:24] all the times. Uh in the 2022 primary,
[34:27] there was a high passage rate of 87%.
[34:30] Uh the lowest percent of a yes vote was
[34:32] at 60% in the 2020 primary. That of
[34:36] course was the beginning of uh the COVID
[34:39] pandemic. Lots of ballot measures
[34:41] struggled in that election. We saw um
[34:44] you know people just very uncertain
[34:46] about the future. So it's not surprising
[34:48] that that would be the lowest yes
[34:50] percent turnout.
[34:51] >> Excuse me. Was that one of our ballot
[34:52] measures that had a 60% yes?
[34:55] >> Yes. Correct.
[34:56] >> Which one was that?
[34:57] >> I'll be going through these next. Yes.
[35:00] So, um, and again, just thinking about
[35:02] that being the beginning of COVID, it's
[35:04] not surprising to see a lower yes
[35:07] percent.
[35:09] So, here are all of those elections as I
[35:12] promised. Uh, it was, uh, probably, you
[35:15] can see that one was measure F. It was a
[35:18] student enrollment increase. It did
[35:20] actually pass. It wasn't requiring a
[35:22] twothirds vote. Um, but it was the
[35:24] lowest yes percentage. Again, not
[35:27] surprising for a ballot measure on the
[35:30] ballot in March of 2020.
[35:33] Um, as we look down this list, uh, you
[35:36] can see many of them are the public
[35:37] safety parcel tax, uh, the paramedic
[35:40] services tax. Um, all of those renewals
[35:44] and, um, except for, uh, the 2012, it
[35:49] was to lower the tax. Um, and you can
[35:52] see here again as we're looking at this
[35:54] those November elections, the turnout
[35:57] percent, then you see the yes percent.
[36:00] Um, and then whether or not it passed.
[36:03] So, the only time there was uh the no
[36:06] vote that was in June 5th of 2012.
[36:11] Um, and that one failed to pass. But
[36:14] each time otherwise they have passed.
[36:18] How far back in time did you go?
[36:20] >> Uh, so we went back to 2010. Um, because
[36:24] we we did have a major fail for Ross
[36:27] School in what's that Elizabeth? 20
[36:32] thou 2006. No, 2005. It was before the
[36:36] flood.
[36:36] >> Ah, yes.
[36:38] >> May um excuse me Joy. These are just the
[36:41] um town measures, right? It's not the
[36:44] school district,
[36:45] >> correct? There is there is actually
[36:47] another uh there are some other
[36:48] elections in here that are the school
[36:50] district's parcel tax and we didn't
[36:52] include all of those.
[36:53] >> I think the school enrollment is
[36:54] Branson, right?
[36:55] >> Yep, it is.
[36:56] >> Yeah, but the the 2060%
[36:59] that wasn't a town measure. That was a
[37:01] private school measure. So,
[37:03] >> but it's considered the town's
[37:05] >> right. No, of course. But I mean, as far
[37:07] as like did the town put something
[37:08] forward that didn't pass? Um it wasn't
[37:11] the town that put that forward,
[37:13] >> right? So the 2012 is the only measure
[37:15] that we have that um so again we're kind
[37:18] of looking at those turnout trends and
[37:21] the yes percent. Um you know the
[37:23] takeaway here is I I think one of the
[37:28] takeaways anyway is that the town values
[37:31] both public safety and paramedic
[37:33] services and we can see that that is uh
[37:37] true because it often is renewed except
[37:39] for that uh 2012 measure. So, as we look
[37:43] at each one of these just a little bit,
[37:46] you know, in different ways, we're
[37:47] looking at the yes vote, we're looking
[37:49] at the no vote, and again, what type of
[37:52] measure it was. Um, you know, you can
[37:54] kind of see the data here. I'll just
[37:57] kind of lightly gloss over these because
[37:59] it's just each way of looking at that
[38:01] summary chart that we just did, but it's
[38:04] just a another opportunity to see all
[38:06] the numbers because now you can see the
[38:08] total number of voters plus the total
[38:11] turnout each time. Um, so right when
[38:14] we're looking at 2010, we can see 1677
[38:19] total voters, the turnout was 1133, 68%
[38:24] turnout. If we look then at the primary
[38:26] measure on March 5th, 2024, you can see
[38:29] total voters 1743.
[38:32] Uh turnout was 874,
[38:35] a 50% turnout. So just kind of comparing
[38:38] here a November election to a March
[38:41] election. Um so even though one is a
[38:44] paramedic and the other is public
[38:46] safety, we're still just looking at two
[38:48] different election dates to see how the
[38:50] turnout changes.
[38:53] And on the next slide, we're looking at
[38:55] a November election versus a June
[38:58] election. So again, just taking a look
[39:01] at the turnout. Um, you know, you can
[39:04] see your yes vote, your no votes are,
[39:06] you know, fairly similar. The June saw a
[39:09] slightly higher yes vote. But, uh, as we
[39:12] look down at the turnout, we can see
[39:14] total number of voters voting in the
[39:15] election, pretty similar at about 1,600
[39:18] voters. Um but the November election a
[39:21] slightly higher turnout as it reached
[39:24] over a thousand voters turning out at
[39:26] 65% again June 892 53%.
[39:33] And then finally here just another you
[39:37] know public safety public safety both of
[39:39] these are no uh November elections. Um
[39:42] the 2016 election was a presidential.
[39:45] The 2012 election um also a
[39:48] presidential. And again, you can see
[39:50] this is where you enjoy your highest
[39:52] turnouts. So each time we're just kind
[39:54] of looking how do these elections
[39:56] compare to each other and how does
[39:58] turnout compare? Because when we're
[40:00] thinking about putting a potential
[40:02] measure on the ballot, one of the things
[40:04] that you want to understand is um is it
[40:08] doing better when it's on a ballot with
[40:10] lots of other things as these November
[40:12] ballots are, right? Every time we have a
[40:15] presidential year, just um even a
[40:18] gubanatorial year like this year, we see
[40:21] win many more things on the ballot. Many
[40:23] state measures, many county measures,
[40:25] many school measures, but we still enjoy
[40:27] a large turnout. So although we may not
[40:30] control the conversation, voters are
[40:32] turning out to vote on the measures and
[40:34] we're seeing that it's not impacting at
[40:36] least these public safety measures. Um
[40:39] you're still able to have a conversation
[40:41] and be heard and these measures are
[40:43] doing well in those November elections.
[40:46] But if I go back one slide, you can see
[40:48] again like the primary measures were
[40:51] just seeing lower turnout. So, you might
[40:53] be not there might not be as many things
[40:56] on the ballot in that primary election,
[40:58] but voters just aren't being compelled
[41:01] to turn out even though it's still a
[41:04] issue that is important to the town. So,
[41:09] okay. So, uh h here we go. Just turnout
[41:13] over time. Again, just another way to
[41:15] look at it all and be able to kind of
[41:18] see that turnout trend. So, we've put
[41:20] the measures in there from 2010 to 2024.
[41:24] You can see your high measure turnout
[41:27] was measure K in 2016. That's when the
[41:30] highest number of voters turned out.
[41:33] These later election years, we just
[41:34] haven't seen the same turnout. So,
[41:37] again, those are primary elections,
[41:39] those last three that we're seeing, the
[41:41] F, the I, and the E. And you can see how
[41:44] much lower the turnout is in those
[41:46] primary elections.
[41:49] So then we take a look at also the
[41:51] passage rate for each of those elections
[41:54] and you can see it's actually pretty
[41:55] consistent. Um you know we have a a
[41:58] little bit of a low drop there in that
[41:59] June 5th of 2012. We have a little bit
[42:02] of a a low drop in March of 2020. Both
[42:06] of those you know that's the pandemic.
[42:08] So you would expect that. Um but
[42:11] otherwise you've enjoyed a pretty
[42:13] consistent yes vote except for those
[42:16] dips.
[42:18] And so finally one last way to look at
[42:20] it. Uh many people see different data
[42:23] differently. So I'm trying to provide an
[42:26] overall view so that you can you know
[42:28] just see different ways of looking at
[42:30] this. So again the yellow dots are the
[42:32] primary elections. The blue dots are the
[42:35] general elections. Those being the
[42:37] November elections. And again, except
[42:41] for those two elections where we saw a
[42:43] dip in both voter turnout, uh we're also
[42:47] seeing, you know, those measures kind of
[42:49] down there in the lower end of
[42:52] percentage passage or percentage yes,
[42:55] not passage because again, the one
[42:57] measure did pass the student enrollment.
[42:59] It's just that it didn't require
[43:00] twothirds.
[43:05] So, one of the takeaways that again I
[43:08] have about this is that when we're
[43:12] looking at these elections, one
[43:14] consideration you have when you're
[43:16] looking at all of the um data
[43:19] aggregately is, you know, mostly these
[43:23] public safety measures, both of them,
[43:25] the paramedic services and the public
[43:27] safety one have enjoyed success
[43:30] regardless of voter turnout. So it
[43:32] didn't matter whether we had high voter
[43:34] turnout or low voter turnout. It's just
[43:36] a service that people care about and so
[43:38] we were able to have a good conversation
[43:40] and people understood the need of it. I
[43:44] think as you're switching gears and
[43:46] looking at a different subject, there
[43:48] are a lot of things to think about. And
[43:50] so the rest of the slides, I just kind
[43:51] of want to go through that and pull that
[43:53] apart because we're no longer talking
[43:55] about public safety. We're talking about
[43:57] public buildings and people have
[43:59] different emotional attachments to each
[44:01] of those items and it's worthwhile to
[44:03] consider that as you're looking at what
[44:06] you know what to do next and what type
[44:08] of measure to put on the ballot. So when
[44:11] you're looking at election timing and
[44:13] you're considering that as part of the
[44:15] process, the factors beside a primary
[44:19] election or a general election are the
[44:22] measure type, which is what I just
[44:24] explained. Um, public trust. That's
[44:28] always important when a a public entity
[44:30] is looking to put a ballot measure on
[44:32] the ballot. We see the more trust people
[44:34] have in that public entity, the more
[44:36] likely they are to be successful. Um,
[44:38] tax amount. It's no surprise that here
[44:41] in California, we're seeing a lot of tax
[44:44] sensitivity recently, regardless of what
[44:47] type of measure it is. Uh we've been
[44:49] doing surveys all over the state and I
[44:51] will say it is the number one issue I
[44:53] have seen this past year that has come
[44:55] up in the minds of California voters is
[44:58] this tax sensitivity. Um a lot of that
[45:01] is because of the economy. Uh people are
[45:04] feeling inflation in a way that they
[45:06] just haven't felt it before. Um and I
[45:09] work in a lot of communities that are
[45:10] similar small um and uh you know similar
[45:15] demographics as the town of Ross. And it
[45:17] doesn't matter where you are in
[45:19] California, everyone is sort of feeling
[45:21] this uh when you're thinking about it.
[45:23] Also, another thing to consider is will
[45:26] there be potential opposition? Do we
[45:28] have everybody around the table? Is
[45:29] everybody having a good conversation or
[45:32] will there be opposition? Uh for a
[45:34] potential geo bond on the b uh on the
[45:37] ballot, it would be a twothirds measure.
[45:40] Um so right in order to be successful
[45:44] those measures require a lot of
[45:46] consensus. Um they often fail when they
[45:50] have a minimal amount of opposition
[45:53] and then the ability to form and have an
[45:56] independent campaign committee. Uh the
[45:58] town can always provide public
[46:00] information and talk about the process
[46:03] uh just as you're planning to be doing
[46:05] as you're moving forward. However, once
[46:08] uh the town makes a decision to move
[46:10] forward to put something on the ballot,
[46:12] that has to be supported by an
[46:13] independent campaign committee. And uh I
[46:16] believe all of your previous measures
[46:18] have had some level of that uh before,
[46:21] which is part of the reason they were
[46:23] successful.
[46:27] So, what potential election dates are
[46:29] available in 2027? There are four
[46:32] potential election dates. 2027 will be
[46:37] an off-year election. So just that alone
[46:41] will likely make it a lower turnout
[46:43] election because people are used to
[46:46] voting in even numbered years and
[46:48] they're used to voting in November of
[46:50] those even numbered years.
[46:53] There are pros and cons to each one of
[46:55] these elections. We'll go through those
[46:57] one by one. Um, but just on a high
[47:00] level, uh, March 2nd, May 4th, the
[47:04] county lists August 31st. That's very
[47:07] odd to me, but their dates and their
[47:09] calendar all line up with that August
[47:11] 31st. Uh, typically, uh, elections are
[47:14] the first Tuesday after the first
[47:16] Monday. So, we would confirm that with
[47:19] the county, but it does appear that they
[47:21] have an August 31st votebymail special
[47:23] election. And then of course there is
[47:26] the November 2nd 2027 special election.
[47:29] So for each one of these elections there
[47:32] are some pros and cons. Um one of the
[47:35] big ones is the cost consideration.
[47:37] You'll notice that some of these are
[47:38] labeled vote by mail special election
[47:41] and some are just labeled special
[47:42] election. Um with the um with the
[47:47] requirement now of vote centers, uh that
[47:50] can often increase the costs for an
[47:53] election, a standalone election
[47:55] especially because you're required to
[47:58] have a vote center open 10 days before
[48:01] election day and that has to be staffed
[48:04] by someone from the county during the
[48:05] open hours and that can increase costs.
[48:08] I recently did a ballot measure and I
[48:11] just give this as an example for the uh
[48:14] San Marino Unified School District. So
[48:17] very small insular community, a little
[48:19] bigger than the town of Ross, but also
[48:21] small. Uh they were renewing a parcel
[48:24] tax on the ballot. Uh because they were
[48:26] required to have vote centers open. Uh
[48:29] the uh county build them. Normally they
[48:33] had paid somewhere around 20 to $30,000
[48:36] to renew their measure. They were
[48:38] charged over $800,000 for that election
[48:42] and it took many many uh back and forth
[48:46] for them for the county to come down
[48:48] from that. So it's just I think really
[48:50] important in the planning um to
[48:53] understand what the county would charge
[48:56] for a vote by mail versus a special
[48:58] election. Uh I am very cautious about
[49:01] that since since the district had been
[49:04] built that the other things to consider
[49:07] is just this November uh this November
[49:10] because these are all 2027 uh election
[49:14] dates. You're coming on the heels of
[49:16] this November's election. Everyone will
[49:19] have heard everything about this
[49:21] November by the time you vote to move to
[49:24] place something on the ballot in 2027
[49:26] should you decide to do that.
[49:29] This ballot will be crowded. There is a
[49:31] contested gubanatorial election for the
[49:33] first time in a long time in California.
[49:36] Means we're going to have a lot of TV
[49:37] ads, a lot of text messaging, a lot of
[49:39] mail. There's also um some very uh
[49:43] interesting statewide propositions that
[49:46] include uh provisions about uh tax
[49:50] measures that will get a lot of
[49:52] attention this November as well. And uh
[49:55] you know, as I mentioned on a previous
[49:56] slide, the tax sensitivity is high. So
[49:59] that will be interesting as that
[50:01] conversation happens this November. Um
[50:04] it's hard to get voters attention for
[50:06] education when they're focused on
[50:08] November. So they're focused on this
[50:11] November's election. It's hard to get
[50:12] them to think about the future when this
[50:15] is what they're hearing all the time. Um
[50:18] and then that voter, you know, tax
[50:20] fatigue. Um and then lastly, you know,
[50:23] Proposition 43, which is what I just
[50:26] mentioned, uh that is on the ballot
[50:28] talking about restricting, um the
[50:31] potential for citizens initiatives and
[50:35] uh tax measures going forward. So,
[50:37] that's going to have a lot of
[50:39] conversation around it and it'll just be
[50:41] interesting as we move it forward based
[50:44] on how California voters decide on that.
[50:46] So, I think it's something to watch as
[50:48] you're considering future ballot
[50:50] measures.
[50:54] So, I just again I promised that I would
[50:57] go through each one of those as a pros
[50:59] and con, but here I'm taking a moment to
[51:02] just show what March would look like
[51:04] because I think in order to understand
[51:06] the pros and cons of each of these
[51:08] elections, it's helpful to be thinking
[51:10] of the uh process and kind of the
[51:12] timeline that you'd be working under in
[51:15] order to meet a particular deadline.
[51:18] So, I like this graphic because
[51:21] oftentimes when I'm thinking about a
[51:23] ballot measure, I think about the
[51:25] election date I'm targeting. So, in this
[51:27] particular example, we are looking at
[51:30] the March 2027 election. So, from there,
[51:33] you have to work backwards and think,
[51:36] okay, this is our ultimate target. What
[51:38] does it look like when we work backwards
[51:40] from that date? The important thing here
[51:42] when you're looking at this is we have
[51:45] purposely uh you'll notice there are
[51:47] four steps but purposely we have colored
[51:50] the first three arrows blue. Those are
[51:53] items that a public entity can do as
[51:56] part of their planning process. So
[51:58] they're blue on purpose before that blue
[52:01] line. Uh then the arrow changes uh color
[52:04] to yellow because that is a separate
[52:07] process done by the independent campaign
[52:09] committee. So these first three arrows
[52:12] are the things that the town can do as
[52:15] part of your planning process.
[52:17] So again, as we're kind of working
[52:20] backwards, that date right under that
[52:23] November 2026,
[52:25] in order to place a measure on the
[52:27] ballot, uh the council uh would have to
[52:31] vote 88 days before election day at your
[52:35] current elect uh cycle of meetings. That
[52:39] likely means a November vote. So, voting
[52:42] right after the general election in
[52:47] order to meet that deadline to get on
[52:49] the ballot for March. Uh it would enable
[52:52] you to place that ballot measure on the
[52:54] March ballot. So, everything we would be
[52:56] doing between now um this middle of
[52:59] August through that November date is
[53:02] covered by those three arrows. So the
[53:04] first thing you know kind of considering
[53:06] is uh the voters whether or not you
[53:08] would be interested in some sort of
[53:10] voter survey to understand the interests
[53:12] of your voters. Um the election timing,
[53:15] what date is best suited? Uh the
[53:19] political landscape and the tax rate.
[53:21] Those are all part of the feasibility
[53:23] question. Is this feasible to put on a
[53:25] future ballot?
[53:27] then you're kind of looking at that
[53:29] September through November time frame uh
[53:33] to do that awareness building. Those are
[53:35] those non-advocacy communications. It's
[53:38] part of the process that you're already
[53:39] building. Um you know, having regular
[53:41] meetings about the master plan
[53:43] amendments, um talking about how you
[53:46] would fund that, talking about potential
[53:48] solutions. Um all of that awareness
[53:51] building can be done using your existing
[53:53] communications. Um, it's making sure
[53:56] that everybody internally understands
[53:58] the process and then also expanding that
[54:01] to your external audiences. Again,
[54:03] building on the transparency and trust
[54:06] as you're moving through this process
[54:08] and determining whether or not the
[54:10] community is ready to move forward
[54:12] because ultimately elections do cost
[54:15] money. And if you're putting something
[54:16] on the ballot, you want to hope that it
[54:18] has a chance of success. Then the final
[54:21] thing just before you vote is that
[54:23] ballot measure development. So it is
[54:25] that ballot question that important
[54:27] 75word statement that appears on the
[54:30] everyone's ballots that they ultimately
[54:32] vote on. Uh the tax rate which will be
[54:36] part of the ballot book and then you
[54:38] know also ballot arguments and signers.
[54:41] So it's a it's a fairly compressed but
[54:44] not impossible timeline in order to
[54:47] prepare for a March election. And so you
[54:49] can imagine as we go through each of the
[54:51] other election dates, you're still doing
[54:54] these same things. It's just changing
[54:56] the time that we have in order to do it.
[55:03] So here are some considerations for each
[55:06] of those potential election dates. So
[55:08] again, I have that March date, the May
[55:11] date, the August date, and the November
[55:13] date.
[55:14] um each one of these it's very likely
[55:18] that it will be a single issue ballot.
[55:21] Uh right, there's just not much
[55:23] likelihood that anything else would be
[55:25] on the ballot. So again, we're probably
[55:28] dealing with lower turnout. Um but some
[55:31] advantages of each uh these elections,
[55:34] obviously the March and May elections,
[55:36] uh earlier funding for the potential
[55:38] project, if it were to pass, uh it would
[55:41] allow you to do that. Um, some
[55:43] disadvantages for both of those is that
[55:45] compressed, you know, faster time
[55:47] schedule that we just saw on the
[55:49] previous slide. Um, you know, potential
[55:52] costs of a vote center in March because
[55:54] you might remember that one just said
[55:56] special election. It didn't say mail
[55:58] ballot was available. Um, and less
[56:01] project maturity, less time to, you
[56:04] know, have the conversation with the
[56:06] community, less time to make planning.
[56:08] Um, same with May. Uh again, May is not
[56:13] a time when people uh typically vote. So
[56:17] you may see even lower voter turnout in
[56:20] May because people just aren't expecting
[56:23] and as school years are and graduations
[56:26] and all those things are happening. Uh
[56:28] we just don't see a lot of people um
[56:31] participating in May elections. So it's
[56:33] just important to kind of think about
[56:35] that. Um August again single issue uh
[56:39] earlier funding. Um the hard thing about
[56:42] August elections I we have tried these
[56:44] many many times in different
[56:46] communities. I have rarely seen an
[56:48] August measure pass. I'll be quite frank
[56:51] because people are doing their last
[56:54] minute traveling before their kids go
[56:55] back to school or you know before the
[56:58] end of the summer. it would be in my
[57:01] mind the the one that I would least
[57:04] likely recommend. Um it is just very
[57:07] hard to capture voters in August uh
[57:10] November of 2027. Um you know obviously
[57:13] it is a longer runway. Um we won't know
[57:17] again if there would be additional costs
[57:19] if that would be required for a vote
[57:21] center. That would be something we'd
[57:23] have to figure out with the county. Um
[57:25] but you'd have time for more public
[57:27] outreach. you'd have more time for pro
[57:29] uh project definition. Um it's possible
[57:32] that if anyone else was targeting a
[57:34] election, they'd probably be targeting
[57:36] that. There could be other things on
[57:38] that ballot, but again, I would expect
[57:40] it would still be a single issue. Uh
[57:43] very likely, it's just if if someone
[57:46] else was looking at a ballot, they
[57:47] probably would look at that.
[57:52] So, the other thing I wanted to talk
[57:54] about, and I know that uh the town has
[57:57] perhaps uh not done a voter survey in
[58:00] the past, but I wanted to sort of talk a
[58:03] little bit about advantages and
[58:05] disadvantages. Um I have worked with uh
[58:08] towns that are even smaller than the
[58:10] town of Ross who have done voter
[58:12] surveys, so I know they can be done.
[58:14] I've done jurisdictions that are even
[58:16] smaller. um you know some that have had
[58:20] 50 to 150 voters. Uh you do voter
[58:24] surveys differently in those
[58:25] communities. Um so is it helpful? Yes.
[58:29] But there are some considerations. Uh I
[58:32] think uh what are some of those
[58:34] advantages? A voter survey is a
[58:37] scientific way to look at registered
[58:39] voters who are likely to vote in a
[58:42] particular election. So, it really is
[58:45] meant to give you a clear idea of where
[58:48] people are today on the issues and it
[58:51] doesn't even just have to be about
[58:54] uh the you know master plan project. You
[58:57] could actually ask questions about other
[58:59] things that are important in the
[59:00] community. So, there are opportunities
[59:03] to ask about other town priorities. So,
[59:06] it could help you inform the process and
[59:09] understand what some of the cost
[59:10] tolerances are. Um, one town I worked
[59:14] with, uh, they looked at two different
[59:16] types of ballot measures. Uh, this was
[59:19] way up north in, um, one of the northern
[59:21] counties, uh, a sea or an oceanside
[59:26] town. Um, and right, they were
[59:28] considering both a fire measure and
[59:30] another, uh, general sales tax measure.
[59:33] Um, in order, you know, by going through
[59:35] the survey process, they were able to
[59:38] figure out what was best for their town.
[59:40] and it actually helped them uh be
[59:43] successful after uh previous failures.
[59:46] So again, sometimes it can help give you
[59:48] some information that you may not have.
[59:51] The disadvantages are, you know, a
[59:53] professional survey firm that is not me.
[59:56] Uh we don't do surveys, but I work with
[59:58] survey firms. Um depending on the type
[1:00:01] of survey, you know, the cost can be
[1:00:03] between 25 and 30,000. I think if you
[1:00:07] are asking other questions about other
[1:00:09] town priorities, it probably helps
[1:00:13] add value. Uh if it's a single issue
[1:00:15] survey though, it may not be as
[1:00:17] valuable. That could be a disadvantage.
[1:00:20] The other disadvantage is that it would
[1:00:22] require some time to build that survey,
[1:00:25] right? You'd want to hire a firm. You'd
[1:00:27] want to talk to them about the
[1:00:28] questions. You want um you know, in our
[1:00:31] firm, I would work with you on that
[1:00:33] process. uh if we were you know moving
[1:00:36] forward um but it would add some time
[1:00:38] right if we were targeting something in
[1:00:40] March uh you obviously wouldn't want to
[1:00:43] field a survey in October of this year
[1:00:45] for example right it would mean you'd
[1:00:47] have to do a survey in September and
[1:00:50] then I'd have some questions about you
[1:00:52] know how
[1:00:54] since it was done before the election in
[1:00:57] November like you know voter perceptions
[1:01:00] could change so you wouldn't actually
[1:01:02] want to do a survey day before the
[1:01:04] November election and that's an
[1:01:06] incredibly tight timeline between then
[1:01:09] and March. So, you know, just concept.
[1:01:12] Again, I'm not trying to tell you which
[1:01:14] one is better. I'm just trying to
[1:01:15] provide you with information to help you
[1:01:17] make a good decision as you're
[1:01:18] considering all these options.
[1:01:24] So, uh next steps, I promise I think I'm
[1:01:26] down to two slides. So, uh, next steps,
[1:01:31] part of the next steps would be to bring
[1:01:33] the team together to help, uh, put
[1:01:35] together this plan. Uh, and that would
[1:01:37] be including, you know, your bond
[1:01:39] council, uh, the municipal financial
[1:01:41] advisor. Uh, we would be part of that
[1:01:44] communications and planning consultant,
[1:01:47] um, your architect, your cost estimator,
[1:01:49] and then, of course, town staff. That
[1:01:51] really is your full team as you're
[1:01:53] considering this project. Um the types
[1:01:56] of things that we specifically work on
[1:01:58] uh we work with the team on feasibility.
[1:02:00] So is a survey right? What type of
[1:02:02] survey is right? How should we go about
[1:02:04] that? Um strategic communications. Uh in
[1:02:08] many cities I've worked on you know town
[1:02:10] halls or worked on presentations as you
[1:02:13] go out. Sometimes instead of bringing
[1:02:15] people to you it's better to go where
[1:02:17] people are. So how do we work those uh
[1:02:19] communications into those existing
[1:02:21] meetings? um you know working on that
[1:02:24] communication engagement uh election
[1:02:27] timing and then coordination with all
[1:02:29] the other adviserss oftentimes uh we
[1:02:32] work to help um run the timeline and
[1:02:34] just make sure because we do have a date
[1:02:37] that we have in mind as I showed with
[1:02:39] the timeline uh and we want to make sure
[1:02:41] that we've accomplished all the things
[1:02:43] we want to accomplish before the council
[1:02:46] makes a decision about which direction
[1:02:47] to go and and ultimately placing a
[1:02:49] measure on the ballot.
[1:02:54] So here it is. I promised the last
[1:02:56] slide. Uh so happy to answer any
[1:02:58] questions. But I think some of the
[1:03:01] things that we were hoping this would uh
[1:03:03] lead to discussion on is you know is the
[1:03:07] town interested in continuing evaluing
[1:03:09] future uh future funding options? Um do
[1:03:13] we feel that uh public outreach is
[1:03:15] appropriate? um is there any other
[1:03:17] analysis on the election timing and you
[1:03:21] know whether we should uh our firm
[1:03:23] should be a part of that process. So
[1:03:26] these are our questions and I don't know
[1:03:28] David if you had anything else or
[1:03:31] >> just add a quick uh as as Joy mentions
[1:03:35] one of the partners
[1:03:37] that the town would engage with respect
[1:03:39] to a bond measure would be your
[1:03:43] financial or municipal advisor and we
[1:03:46] are working with Philman Rolap on a on a
[1:03:49] scope of work. Uh should council decide
[1:03:51] to move forward, we will um be working
[1:03:53] with them to uh help assist with
[1:03:57] determining appropriate tax rates that
[1:04:00] would fund the proposed uh geo bond
[1:04:03] measure.
[1:04:07] » Questions?
[1:04:09] >> Will there be questions and then public
[1:04:11] comment and then we will discuss that.
[1:04:13] Okay. So um one question, what is the
[1:04:16] date of the May election?
[1:04:18] >> Uh yes. So I believe it was May 4th.
[1:04:21] Yes. I'm happy to go back to
[1:04:23] >> So that actually wouldn't I mean it
[1:04:25] might not affect you mentioned college
[1:04:28] and things like that, but people vote a
[1:04:30] month ahead. So I mean it may not it may
[1:04:32] not be as late as it sounded if it's May
[1:04:35] 4.
[1:04:36] >> Yes, this is true. It's just a not a
[1:04:39] normal time that people would vote. So
[1:04:41] you're dealing with an election that
[1:04:43] almost no one votes in. And then um what
[1:04:47] uh you said there could be a cost for
[1:04:50] voter uh centers in March. What do you
[1:04:53] estimate the county would charge uh our
[1:04:55] town if we have that in on on the ballot
[1:04:59] for a voter center?
[1:05:01] >> We don't I don't know at this time. Uh
[1:05:03] again, the cost where I find the cost
[1:05:06] exists is the fact that they have to
[1:05:09] fund a paid position for all 10 days
[1:05:12] that someone is there while the vote
[1:05:14] center is open. So that's that's what
[1:05:16] happened in our small community in San
[1:05:18] Marino. They actually had to pay for the
[1:05:21] cost of the vote center and that I mean
[1:05:24] it was
[1:05:25] >> But you said you said 10 days was
[1:05:27] $800,000.
[1:05:29] >> Remarkably, it was six. Well, they when
[1:05:31] they gave us a breakdown, it was 600,000
[1:05:34] for that piece of it. Yes. It it just
[1:05:37] can be we just don't know. We would have
[1:05:39] >> a way to get closer to that as we're
[1:05:41] trying to decide. I mean, to me, that's
[1:05:43] a deal breaker. Like, I I don't I can't
[1:05:45] imagine.
[1:05:46] >> And again, the county here may deal with
[1:05:48] it differently. I don't want to I I just
[1:05:50] was providing an illustrative example.
[1:05:53] >> You know, we would communicate with the
[1:05:55] county to determine what that might
[1:05:57] actually look like to give you a better
[1:05:59] idea. And I'm sorry, Chris.
[1:06:01] >> That's okay. Um, thank you, Mayor Prom
[1:06:03] Robbins, for the question. I I asked
[1:06:05] this of our county election office. What
[1:06:07] would be And they they usually provide
[1:06:09] us a range and um, if I recall, the high
[1:06:12] end of the range would would be about $25,000
[1:06:18] total. But this is a good cautionary
[1:06:21] tale that Joy provides that we would
[1:06:24] want to make sure that the county is we
[1:06:27] don't want a surprise like that. So, um,
[1:06:30] >> 25 could would include the voter
[1:06:32] station.
[1:06:33] >> I I asked him, "Our council is looking
[1:06:37] into doing a an item on a special
[1:06:39] election in 2027. Can you give me a an
[1:06:43] estimate of how much it would cost the
[1:06:44] town of Ross to do this?" And he said,
[1:06:47] he gave me a low end and he gave me a
[1:06:49] high-end. um he didn't particularly say
[1:06:52] voter um vote centers, but he said the
[1:06:55] high end based on our registered voters
[1:06:58] was about 25 thou. And so I said, "Wow,
[1:07:00] so the worst case scenario is 25,000."
[1:07:02] And he said he said yes.
[1:07:04] >> Okay.
[1:07:04] >> But I would very much like to and that
[1:07:07] was I have an email to that effect, but
[1:07:10] I would very much would would want to
[1:07:12] confirm that now that we have this
[1:07:14] cautionary tale. And I think a lot too
[1:07:16] depends on what other jurisdictions
[1:07:19] ha if somebody else you know we get to
[1:07:20] split the cost if somebody else another
[1:07:23] jurisdiction has a um a measure on the
[1:07:25] ballot.
[1:07:26] >> Wasn't there something some other town
[1:07:28] or someone putting something on the
[1:07:29] March ballot already?
[1:07:31] >> Did you I thought I read something about
[1:07:34] something go on the March ballot
[1:07:37] but no one's heard. Okay.
[1:07:38] >> No. And again, I my concern is that they
[1:07:42] specifically designate special election
[1:07:44] versus vote by mail special election on
[1:07:46] the county website. So, it's just it's
[1:07:49] just worth verifying because you
[1:07:51] wouldn't want to be surprised.
[1:07:53] >> Of course. Okay. Thank you.
[1:07:56] >> Um could you just briefly talk a little
[1:07:58] bit about ballot measure 43?
[1:08:02] >> Uh Proposition 43.
[1:08:03] >> Proposition. Um so this is um this is
[1:08:09] the business roundts uh measure. Uh they
[1:08:13] are um for years there has been uh much
[1:08:18] discussion about the upland decision
[1:08:21] which allowed uh citizens initiative
[1:08:24] measures to go on the ballot and pass by
[1:08:28] 50% plus one. Um and many of the
[1:08:33] taxpayer groups have felt uh thwarted by
[1:08:36] this and so they have been trying to
[1:08:39] unwind it many different ways over
[1:08:42] several election cycles. Uh and in this
[1:08:46] last election cycle, they did uh collect
[1:08:48] enough signatures to get their measure
[1:08:51] on the ballot, which essentially would
[1:08:54] undo the ability to uh do this citizens
[1:08:57] initiative and get something on the
[1:08:59] ballot and get it passed by 50% plus
[1:09:01] one. Uh it would then require that 2/3.
[1:09:06] Yes. Um and when you read it, it reads
[1:09:11] very much like you know
[1:09:14] um protecting taxpayers and uh so there
[1:09:20] is uh there have been a lot of polling
[1:09:22] about it. Uh the governor's office at
[1:09:24] one point tried to negotiate to get it
[1:09:26] off the ballot. That did not work. It
[1:09:29] will be on the ballot and there will be
[1:09:31] a lot of discussion about taxes this
[1:09:33] November or October.
[1:09:35] >> Yeah. Thank you.
[1:09:38] >> So, I had a question about the
[1:09:39] surveying. Does the the survey exercise
[1:09:43] inform how the ballot measure would be
[1:09:46] structured?
[1:09:48] >> It does. Yes. So, you put the uh you
[1:09:51] actually would test the 75word language.
[1:09:54] Uh you can also test uh different tax
[1:09:56] rates to help understand whether there
[1:09:59] is sensitivity to a particular dollar
[1:10:01] amount. Um you can you can ask about
[1:10:04] different town priorities uh right um
[1:10:09] you know lighting streets other things
[1:10:11] that are important. It doesn't have to
[1:10:13] be this single issue. Um but you
[1:10:17] ultimately are trying to understand how
[1:10:19] voters feel about the particular issue.
[1:10:22] >> And how broad of a survey would it be if
[1:10:24] we have 1600 voters like 200 people?
[1:10:28] >> Uh it probably would be 200. Yes. And
[1:10:31] that affects the margin of error. A
[1:10:33] standard survey um for most
[1:10:36] jurisdictions like no matter how big is
[1:10:39] 400. That gives you a 5% margin of
[1:10:42] error. It's like 4.7 uh with a 95%
[1:10:45] confidence level. At 200, it tends to be
[1:10:48] like an 8% margin of error. At a 95%
[1:10:52] confidence level, but um we do that
[1:10:55] quite a bit actually. Um it I I often
[1:10:59] have surveys that come back with 200 uh
[1:11:03] or so sample size and it's still
[1:11:07] very valid. Um I I still get very strong
[1:11:11] results that help with the planning of a
[1:11:14] particular measure. Could you go back to
[1:11:16] your slide where you had the the three
[1:11:19] blue arrows and then the the yellow
[1:11:22] arrow mark? I'm just wondering, Christa,
[1:11:25] if you could give some feedback about
[1:11:29] all the stuff that would need to happen
[1:11:31] between now under those blue arrows um
[1:11:36] leading up to when we would decide on
[1:11:39] putting something on the ballot,
[1:11:43] » uh the the phrase that pops out at me
[1:11:46] and immediately is tax rate. So under
[1:11:49] item number one
[1:11:51] um you know we have to have a project to
[1:11:56] have the most accurate cost estimate and
[1:12:00] um right now we're going through an
[1:12:02] amendment process to do that. So and
[1:12:05] there's um some elements there of the
[1:12:08] CAC plan that are you know we need it's
[1:12:10] we need to know what the project is
[1:12:11] going to be to describe the process. So
[1:12:14] um that's an important part of number
[1:12:16] one. Um and then it looks like we can
[1:12:20] refine it in step number three. So it
[1:12:22] can be refined but um that's my question
[1:12:26] is how can we start with feasibility
[1:12:30] without knowing
[1:12:33] what the project is?
[1:12:36] Um maybe uh Joy has some other comments
[1:12:40] of your experience with other uh
[1:12:42] communities.
[1:12:44] Yeah, I I mean obviously as you're going
[1:12:47] through it
[1:12:49] when I think about your previous
[1:12:51] measures that have enjoyed a lot of
[1:12:53] success again I think they are centered
[1:12:56] on priorities that are important to
[1:12:59] Californians, right? Public safety,
[1:13:02] paramedic services, uh many other
[1:13:06] jurisdictions anchor their public
[1:13:10] finance measures on those things, right?
[1:13:13] Um, and
[1:13:16] public entity bond measures are
[1:13:18] different because they're focused on
[1:13:20] buildings, not services.
[1:13:23] And it's just a different emotional
[1:13:26] conversation.
[1:13:27] Uh, and so it requires a lot of
[1:13:31] community engagement. It requires it's
[1:13:34] it and again not that these things never
[1:13:36] pass. Many buil you know, libraries have
[1:13:38] been built. uh many things have been
[1:13:40] done through these measures but it is
[1:13:43] because a community had a transparent
[1:13:46] open process where there was a lot of
[1:13:49] conversation and there was time to plan.
[1:13:52] So I think that is critical. Um and not
[1:13:56] saying that you haven't already done
[1:13:57] that but that would be my word of
[1:13:59] caution as you're moving forward is just
[1:14:02] think about
[1:14:04] because it's always hard to recover from
[1:14:06] a loss. It's not impossible, but you
[1:14:10] know, it is hard to recover from a loss
[1:14:12] and then come back and be right back on
[1:14:14] a ballot again.
[1:14:16] >> But aren't aren't we mischaracterizing
[1:14:18] this election? You're saying it's public
[1:14:21] buildings, but it has a very strong
[1:14:24] public safety component. The Gensler
[1:14:26] plan included the option for a fire
[1:14:29] station and I think that it's that
[1:14:32] option that that will generate support
[1:14:35] widespread support and it is seen as a
[1:14:38] public by many people it is seen as a
[1:14:40] public safety election and that should
[1:14:43] be benefit us. I would think
[1:14:46] >> it can um again I've seen ballot
[1:14:48] measures sometimes people identifi and
[1:14:51] again I I recognize that there is a
[1:14:53] great interest in a fire station here in
[1:14:56] the town um and that alone could
[1:14:58] generate interest so I'm not uh
[1:15:01] disregarding that but buildings are
[1:15:04] still buildings and services are still
[1:15:06] services and I just you know see it time
[1:15:09] and time again
[1:15:12] the more time you have for an open and
[1:15:15] transparent discussion with the
[1:15:17] community about it, the better your
[1:15:20] project is and the better the project
[1:15:22] is, the more willing people are because
[1:15:25] ultimately you're asking them to reach
[1:15:27] into their pockets and help pay for it.
[1:15:30] And so, right, they're just it's just
[1:15:32] part of the process to get their
[1:15:35] engagement and buy in.
[1:15:39] So in in our town we have a contested
[1:15:42] council election in November and very
[1:15:45] much this project is the core of the
[1:15:48] contested election. What you know your
[1:15:51] timeline is that in November right after
[1:15:54] that election we're supposed to be
[1:15:56] filing for this bond measure.
[1:15:59] Any thoughts about that?
[1:16:03] Well, it's a very compressed and tight
[1:16:06] timeline, and I think you'd be trying to
[1:16:08] put for a March election, you'd be
[1:16:11] trying to put something on the ballot
[1:16:13] after, again, I worry a bit about voter
[1:16:16] fatigue. I worry a bit about u the
[1:16:18] uncertainty. You don't know what the
[1:16:20] makeup of your council will be like. Um,
[1:16:23] those are all questions that
[1:16:28] in my mind you would be better served
[1:16:30] getting past this November election.
[1:16:33] Ultimately, again, you know, your town.
[1:16:36] I, you know, I'm trying to bring ways to
[1:16:39] think about this, but it seems like a
[1:16:42] very difficult time to put something on
[1:16:44] the ballot after this November election.
[1:16:48] >> Okay. You know, I agree completely. I I
[1:16:50] mean I don't know if you know that we
[1:16:51] have saved like $20 million, you know,
[1:16:54] so it's not that we need the funds
[1:16:56] immediately. There's not an immediate
[1:16:58] rush for the funding.
[1:16:59] >> It's 13.7.
[1:17:01] >> Okay. But we have in reserves. The town
[1:17:04] is sitting on $20 million.
[1:17:06] >> Well, no, 13.7 is reserved for the
[1:17:09] facility project. Um,
[1:17:13] also I think to get the new people, the people who win the council election,
[1:17:19] to get them seated at the council, I
[1:17:22] think it requires at least 30 days to
[1:17:25] verify the voter count. So, they
[1:17:28] probably wouldn't even be seated until
[1:17:30] after the time that we would need to
[1:17:33] approve,
[1:17:34] >> right?
[1:17:36] 30 days from election day that the
[1:17:39] >> But why would that why would that
[1:17:40] matter? because this council unanimously
[1:17:42] approved moving forward with the
[1:17:44] building and every candidate that I'm
[1:17:46] aware of who's running is absolutely
[1:17:48] committed to getting this building
[1:17:50] built. So I feel like if there's a
[1:17:52] transition on the council, the goal of
[1:17:54] the building should just move forward.
[1:17:56] So I don't I don't see that November is
[1:17:58] a makeorb breakak date. Um I mean if
[1:18:00] there are issues needing more definition
[1:18:03] of the project then my question would be
[1:18:05] well can we ask Gendler to speed up some
[1:18:08] of their designs so we so we have the
[1:18:10] def as much project you know as much
[1:18:13] information as we need. Um but but I
[1:18:16] don't I I don't see November as as a
[1:18:20] make or break time because I feel like
[1:18:21] there's there's widespread interest in
[1:18:25] this. this council has approved it and
[1:18:28] everyone who's running wants to do it.
[1:18:29] So I don't I don't think I understand
[1:18:31] why November matters.
[1:18:34] You know if to me it sounds seems like
[1:18:35] it only matters because we need a better
[1:18:37] well- definfined project. But why not
[1:18:38] ask Enler to move you know move forward?
[1:18:41] Don't we need the money fast? I mean I I
[1:18:44] thought we needed the money sooner
[1:18:46] rather than later.
[1:18:46] >> I mean there's economies of scale of
[1:18:48] doing everything all at once but as Matt
[1:18:50] points out we have all this money. So
[1:18:52] there could be a potential to phase
[1:18:54] things and slow things down if if we if
[1:18:58] we want to do that. Um,
[1:19:02] and I also think, you know, it it
[1:19:05] depends the lens is going to be
[1:19:07] different depending upon who is sitting
[1:19:09] here and they're going to have, you
[1:19:11] know, different group edits on the
[1:19:12] ballot language and there's going to be
[1:19:14] I agree that every candidate supports
[1:19:17] the building, but I think there each
[1:19:19] person sitting here will bring different
[1:19:22] perspectives to what we're doing. So, I don't know about the timing. It's I
[1:19:28] think it's challenging,
[1:19:30] >> but if we could have group edits.
[1:19:31] >> I don't Are we still in questions?
[1:19:34] >> We're in questions. Point of
[1:19:34] >> order. Thank you.
[1:19:36] >> Um
[1:19:39] Christa,
[1:19:40] >> may I ask a question of the consultant?
[1:19:43] Um Joy, you've commented that the
[1:19:45] November uh date is usually a better
[1:19:47] turnout. Is there do you differentiate
[1:19:50] between November of an off year and
[1:19:52] November of a
[1:19:54] >> an even year
[1:19:55] >> of an even year?
[1:19:56] >> Exactly. So the your your best voter
[1:19:59] turnout will always be in an even year.
[1:20:03] Um always uh it's just when people are
[1:20:07] used to voting. It doesn't mean that and
[1:20:10] again
[1:20:12] if I just you know scatter back here
[1:20:17] you know and we just look at turnout
[1:20:20] right so you can you can see these
[1:20:23] turnouts in different elections and you
[1:20:27] can see you know in March and June the
[1:20:30] turnout is so much lower even in an even
[1:20:33] numbered year and you'll notice that you
[1:20:36] don't have an odd year election
[1:20:39] because we just are not trained to vote
[1:20:43] in off years. So, it's hard for me to
[1:20:46] believe that you would It's not
[1:20:48] impossible. Again, sometimes we exceed
[1:20:51] voter expectations through a tremendous
[1:20:55] advocacy campaign. I'm talking, you
[1:20:57] know, knocking on doors, getting out,
[1:21:01] but you know, even your primary
[1:21:03] elections here are barely getting over
[1:21:05] 50%.
[1:21:07] and that's in an even numbered year. So,
[1:21:09] I understand the need to want to be on
[1:21:11] the ballot sooner because it would help
[1:21:13] bring project funds earlier, but I do
[1:21:16] think your turnout
[1:21:18] in an odd year is always going to be a
[1:21:21] challenge. So, no matter which date you
[1:21:23] choose, turnout will be a piece of that.
[1:21:26] >> But why would we worry about turnout?
[1:21:28] When we look at this, it looks like
[1:21:30] regardless of the time, regardless of
[1:21:33] the turnout, we have very generous
[1:21:34] passing margins. So why are why
[1:21:37] shouldn't we just be looking at what
[1:21:39] percentage approves of the ballot
[1:21:41] measure and if we have not a very low
[1:21:43] big turnout but we have a very generous
[1:21:45] passing margin isn't that all that
[1:21:48] matters why why do we care about turnout
[1:21:49] I I'm not sure that I agree with that
[1:21:51] we're supposed to be focusing on turnout
[1:21:53] because it seems like you know is isn't
[1:21:55] that correct that even with low turnouts
[1:21:58] uh and forget the 20 you know 2012 and
[1:22:00] 2020 with low turnouts uh the ballot
[1:22:04] measures passed handily Isn't that what
[1:22:06] that shows?
[1:22:07] >> Um, to me it shows that people care
[1:22:10] deeply about public safety and paramedic
[1:22:12] services. So, I I think the correlation
[1:22:15] is tougher between uh the yes vote and
[1:22:18] the turnout. So, I I don't disagree that
[1:22:22] you might have low turnout in a March
[1:22:24] election and be successful, but we just
[1:22:27] don't have data that shows that right
[1:22:29] now. We have data that shows that voters
[1:22:31] turn out lower in in the ele that are
[1:22:34] not November. And we also see that
[1:22:38] voters greatly value public safety and
[1:22:42] paramedic services.
[1:22:44] >> And and those um elections are for like
[1:22:47] a$1,000
[1:22:49] parcel tax for public safety or they're
[1:22:51] for a renewal of our paramedic
[1:22:54] um tax, which is like 90 to $100. So
[1:22:59] this is going to be a really different
[1:23:01] magnitude of impact for the residents.
[1:23:05] And I'm wondering if you have any data
[1:23:08] where other similarly situated
[1:23:11] jurisdictions put something on a ballot
[1:23:14] on an odd year for a general obligation
[1:23:17] bond and
[1:23:20] similarly situated and what was their
[1:23:22] experience and maybe we can glean
[1:23:23] something from that.
[1:23:25] >> I'm happy to look back. It's a very rare
[1:23:27] case that we see that and I I will do
[1:23:30] some more research to see if I see that.
[1:23:32] Um it's it's because oftent times when
[1:23:37] people are doing their toughest measures
[1:23:39] they looked for better voter turnout. Uh
[1:23:42] when you're turnout is lower
[1:23:45] um you know you don't enjoy some of the
[1:23:49] benefits of a higher turnout election.
[1:23:51] So, we we have been um criticized in the
[1:23:56] past for putting a measure on a special
[1:24:00] ballot um by a taxpayer group and we had
[1:24:03] to resend
[1:24:04] um the uh parcel tax renewal and move it
[1:24:08] to a regular election. And they're um on their website they say
[1:24:14] they oppose any special election period.
[1:24:18] >> Yeah. So that's something that we need
[1:24:20] to be aware of. Any other Christa?
[1:24:26] » Um I think Joy, is it correct that um
[1:24:29] parcel taxes and sales tax measures need
[1:24:32] to be in the general election?
[1:24:34] >> Uh so uh yes, general sales tax measures
[1:24:38] have to be uh on the ballot when council
[1:24:41] members are on the ballot. They
[1:24:43] >> but not parcel taxes.
[1:24:44] >> Um parcel taxes. So geo bond measures
[1:24:48] are very particular. Those can go on an
[1:24:50] odd year election. Um I believe parcel
[1:24:55] taxes are also required to be on a
[1:24:57] regularly scheduled election. Mhm. Um,
[1:25:01] >> so that that could explain some of the
[1:25:03] history here that these are all partial
[1:25:05] taxes, not and and um and I was also
[1:25:09] curious about that issue of of um well,
[1:25:13] the fact that the town hasn't had the
[1:25:15] experience of the bond of a of a geo
[1:25:18] bond. Yeah, I think it's it is an
[1:25:21] interesting question because you're
[1:25:23] talking about a P parcel tax which is a
[1:25:24] flat rate tax versus a geo bond which is
[1:25:28] of course a rate assessed on a 100,000
[1:25:31] uh per or excuse me it's a flat rate b
[1:25:34] or it's it's a dollar amount based on
[1:25:37] per 100,000 of assessed valuation. So,
[1:25:40] for example, $25 per 100 of assessed
[1:25:43] valuation. And if a home is assessed at
[1:25:46] a million dollars, then right, they're
[1:25:49] paying 10 times the $25. So, it does
[1:25:54] have an a different emotional appeal uh
[1:25:56] feel to people. Again, a project can
[1:25:59] also be very emotional. To the mayor
[1:26:02] prom's point, um many people care about
[1:26:05] this. It is an issue that people are
[1:26:07] passionate about. I don't deny that. I'm
[1:26:10] just saying people also feel very
[1:26:12] passionately about taxes right now, too.
[1:26:16] >> Go ahead, Matt.
[1:26:17] >> So, just to to distill it down, this has
[1:26:19] been a really interesting discussion.
[1:26:21] So, thank you and thank you, Christa,
[1:26:23] for putting this on the agenda. Your
[1:26:25] best advice for pretty much generic
[1:26:28] advice is being on a November election
[1:26:30] during an even year is the best chance
[1:26:33] to get things done because the voter
[1:26:36] turnout is the best. And then it just
[1:26:38] goes down from there if if you don't if
[1:26:40] you can't be on an even year November.
[1:26:43] >> I mean actually I would say my advice is
[1:26:48] uh give yourself time to do a
[1:26:50] feasibility study to have an open and
[1:26:52] transparent process with your voters. I
[1:26:55] think that is your best chance of
[1:26:56] success. I think it's possible to pass a
[1:26:59] measure in an odd election year. It's
[1:27:02] not impossible to do that. But voters
[1:27:06] will
[1:27:09] struggle to support a measure that they
[1:27:11] feel is not well thought out. And
[1:27:14] >> yeah, I'm just asking about timing.
[1:27:16] That's it.
[1:27:18] >> Your your biggest voter participation
[1:27:20] will be in November of 2028.
[1:27:24] It doesn't mean that single issues
[1:27:26] ballot measures.
[1:27:27] >> That's all my question is. Thank you.
[1:27:32] » Hey, Bill, do you have any questions?
[1:27:33] Hearing
[1:27:38] none, we will
[1:27:40] >> Sorry, I'm I had my audio off so I
[1:27:42] wouldn't disturb anyone.
[1:27:44] >> No, I don't. I I I appreciate all the
[1:27:47] questions I would have asked have been
[1:27:48] asked by the council members. So, thank
[1:27:50] you.
[1:27:51] >> Okay. Public comment, Mr. Kuwan.
[1:27:55] >> Thank you, Joy. My name is Jeff Keon.
[1:27:58] I'm the town treasurer.
[1:28:00] So, I'm the guy who owns this problem.
[1:28:04] Nice to meet you.
[1:28:05] >> You too. Thank you for coming.
[1:28:09] >> Basically, all the data you've related
[1:28:11] and dealt with has been a partial tax.
[1:28:14] And of course, that's not how general
[1:28:16] obligation bonds work.
[1:28:19] Um, nor do we have the ability or the opportunity to delay this past 2027.
[1:28:28] >> It's going to happen in 2027.
[1:28:32] >> Yes. So, um, as you pointed out just a
[1:28:35] few minutes ago, the tax is based on the
[1:28:38] assessed value of the homes. There are
[1:28:41] some extremely valuable homes here in
[1:28:43] Ross. So, the spread between high and
[1:28:47] low is a huge difference. High and low
[1:28:51] tax. That's what I meant. So, with all,
[1:28:54] pardon me, with all of that in mind,
[1:28:57] does any of that change? How would you
[1:29:01] would your presentation have been
[1:29:03] different if you knew that this is the
[1:29:05] only option we have a general obligation
[1:29:07] bond?
[1:29:08] >> Uh so so I presented the data knowing
[1:29:12] that and presented the data knowing that
[1:29:14] the 2027 elections were the options that
[1:29:16] you were exploring. So, um, yes, and my
[1:29:22] I guess if I were to fall on an ultimate
[1:29:25] recommendation, I would say planning for
[1:29:27] enough time for community engagement is
[1:29:30] what's going to increase your chances of
[1:29:32] success and help you define the project.
[1:29:36] >> Yeah, no question about it. But we're
[1:29:38] probably going to be the only issue on a
[1:29:41] ballot
[1:29:41] >> in in 2027. Yes, that's right. I agree.
[1:29:44] >> That's the point. Thank you. Anybody
[1:29:48] questions from you folks about what I
[1:29:49] just said?
[1:29:50] >> Nope. Okay. Thanks, Julian.
[1:29:52] >> Yeah. Let's see if there's any other
[1:29:54] public comment first. Anybody online,
[1:29:58] Zach?
[1:29:58] >> No one online. Mayor.
[1:29:59] >> Okay. Go ahead, Terry.
[1:30:03] So, Joy,
[1:30:05] in your opinion,
[1:30:07] is March too soon?
[1:30:12] In your opinion, given that we need to
[1:30:14] plan for community engagement, is March
[1:30:17] too soon for a success?
[1:30:21] If we didn't have this November and and
[1:30:24] the propositions on the ballot, I would
[1:30:27] say maybe there was a an opportunity to
[1:30:31] have good community engagement. But I am
[1:30:34] concerned about the tone and tenor of
[1:30:37] this November's election and the ability
[1:30:40] to have a quality conversation with
[1:30:42] voters uh in that time period
[1:30:45] considering when you would have to vote
[1:30:47] to place this on the ballot. So it does
[1:30:50] feel compressed to me. I never say
[1:30:52] anything's impossible. Yeah.
[1:30:54] >> But it does feel compressed to me.
[1:30:57] >> May a better option.
[1:31:00] Uh, I think it gives you more time
[1:31:02] because if you're thinking about when
[1:31:03] you would have to vote to put that on
[1:31:05] the ballot, it actually is uh Oh, I had
[1:31:09] it in the presentation, but it it
[1:31:12] actually is after that November
[1:31:13] election. It does give you a little bit
[1:31:15] more time.
[1:31:16] >> Okay.
[1:31:16] >> So, I want to say it's in January,
[1:31:19] but
[1:31:23] » um any further discussion? Yes,
[1:31:25] Elizabeth.
[1:31:27] So, um, I think that it's really
[1:31:29] important that this go on the ballot
[1:31:30] soon because I think there's a lot of
[1:31:32] momentum with the April 29 presentation,
[1:31:35] the reception of the Gensler project,
[1:31:37] hiring Gensler. Um,
[1:31:40] you know, March versus May isn't that
[1:31:43] different. I think later than May would
[1:31:45] be would be could torpedo the whole
[1:31:48] project. I think we could lose interest.
[1:31:50] I think people could say, you know, why aren't you moving forward? We
[1:31:55] thought you had all this in line. We
[1:31:56] thought you had unanimous agreement. And
[1:31:58] I think we could lose momentum and lose
[1:32:01] votes if we don't if we don't act
[1:32:03] quickly. I mean, March or May, I think
[1:32:05] they're both fine. Um, you're right
[1:32:08] about public engagement, though. We have
[1:32:10] many meetings coming up right now and
[1:32:12] the meetings are planning meetings about
[1:32:14] the the um the building but they will
[1:32:17] serve as engaging the public so that
[1:32:20] when we do talk about what the tax will
[1:32:21] be everyone will be will know already
[1:32:24] what we're talking about. So I don't
[1:32:26] think public engagement will be that
[1:32:28] difficult. Um I do think you mentioned
[1:32:31] public trust. Public trust is hugely
[1:32:33] important. the um the 2012 uh um parcel
[1:32:38] tax that failed. There were a lot of
[1:32:39] town politics and a lot of people were
[1:32:41] unhappy and they basically said no and
[1:32:44] we need and then four years later when
[1:32:46] we did another tax um things had changed
[1:32:50] the the tone of the town had changed and
[1:32:52] that passed handily. So we do want to be
[1:32:55] sure that we're moving carefully and
[1:32:57] that that we're including people and
[1:32:59] that there's trust. Um
[1:33:02] uh
[1:33:05] let's see. Um I do you know there there
[1:33:09] was a mention that well we have some
[1:33:10] money so we could phase this. I think
[1:33:12] that we will lose ground if we phase
[1:33:14] this. I think that if we start building
[1:33:17] uh I think we lose maybe we get a
[1:33:19] paramedic station but we lose the rest
[1:33:21] of the building. People are going to say
[1:33:22] well why why vote for anything? We you
[1:33:24] know we're partway there. I don't really
[1:33:25] care. Whereas this is a package deal.
[1:33:28] the whole the whole beautiful building
[1:33:30] and it's gorgeous plus the possibility
[1:33:32] of a fire station. I think that that
[1:33:34] will generate a lot of votes and I think
[1:33:35] if we split this up I don't quite know
[1:33:37] who's going to vote for the you know the
[1:33:39] lower tax later on. I I I don't I think
[1:33:43] this it's better all at once. Um and I
[1:33:46] don't think people want to drag out the
[1:33:47] project. Um
[1:33:50] see any other comments here? Um,
[1:33:54] oh, uh, well, we'll have to talk about
[1:33:57] this. Um,
[1:34:00] uh, Julia mentioned like will it be a
[1:34:02] problem with cost if we have it, you
[1:34:05] know, at at a non-regular election. I
[1:34:07] think given our building needs, giving
[1:34:09] given the um the interest in getting the
[1:34:12] paramedic facility done on time, I I
[1:34:14] don't think we have a lot of choice. I I
[1:34:16] don't think cost is going to say, "Oh,
[1:34:17] no, you can't do it now because we have
[1:34:19] timelines that that tell us that we have
[1:34:21] to." So, I I don't think that that I
[1:34:24] don't think that will be a problem. Um,
[1:34:26] and then you mentioned surveys. So, here
[1:34:30] I I really don't think that the town
[1:34:32] should be doing surveys. I think that
[1:34:34] especially I people are going to look at
[1:34:36] the cost and say, "Why are we spending
[1:34:37] $30,000 for a survey?" People are going
[1:34:40] to look at it's kind of like the
[1:34:41] slickness of it that, you know, we're
[1:34:43] sort of polling people. And I think when
[1:34:45] you have a big district, so the the high
[1:34:47] school district that includes Mil
[1:34:48] Valley, it includes um Sanelmo, Fairfax,
[1:34:52] the whole area, all of all of um
[1:34:55] southern Marin. I think that it's
[1:34:57] reasonable for them to try to get a
[1:34:59] sense of what do their voters think,
[1:35:00] what will they approve. We've got not a
[1:35:02] lot of voters. Everybody goes to the
[1:35:04] post office almost every day. I think we
[1:35:06] have a very good feel for what people
[1:35:07] are saying, what they're thinking, what
[1:35:09] they will vote for. And I think it would
[1:35:12] harm us more than help us to do a survey
[1:35:14] because I think it will be seen as, you
[1:35:17] know, well, the town's hiring a
[1:35:19] consultant and they're spending a lot of
[1:35:20] money and should they really be spending
[1:35:22] money on on yet another consultant
[1:35:24] because we already have a lot of
[1:35:25] consultants on this project and
[1:35:27] certainly in the last I mean 30 years
[1:35:30] that I know of there hasn't been a
[1:35:32] political consultant doing a survey
[1:35:34] there. We did one, you know, an in-house
[1:35:36] one about the fire station, but there's
[1:35:38] something about a political survey that
[1:35:40] in my opinion doesn't feel right for
[1:35:42] this town, and I don't think the cost
[1:35:44] will be well received. So, those are my
[1:35:47] thoughts.
[1:35:50] >> Okay. Um, sort of piggybacking on you,
[1:35:53] Elizabeth, I actually think trust is a
[1:35:56] very important and a critical issue and
[1:36:00] I think it's going to take time and I
[1:36:03] think we need to put the time into
[1:36:05] working with the community.
[1:36:07] Um, I think phase in is possible. I
[1:36:11] think we have a big commitment to make
[1:36:14] sure that we rebuild the build the
[1:36:17] paramedic facility. Got to do it. And if
[1:36:20] it meant we phased in so we got that
[1:36:22] piece done in time to meet our
[1:36:24] obligation, I think that's not a bad
[1:36:26] thing to do. So I wouldn't I wouldn't
[1:36:29] rule out phasing in this project. Um it
[1:36:34] may end up costing us a little more
[1:36:35] money to do it, but I think if it was
[1:36:38] way for us to also honor our obligation
[1:36:40] to the paramedics, I think it's worth
[1:36:42] it. So, um, and as for a survey,
[1:36:46] I was sort of on the fence, but I think
[1:36:49] the survey would give us a little more
[1:36:50] information than we currently have now.
[1:36:53] Um, and
[1:36:56] uh, I I actually would be curious as to
[1:36:59] the results of that survey about where
[1:37:01] people are with the civic center and why
[1:37:04] they want that civic center and why it
[1:37:06] would be important to them. So, I I
[1:37:10] think it's worth the money, but I worry
[1:37:13] about the time. So, there we go.
[1:37:19] » Well, I I would say the first thing is
[1:37:21] that we act as if the civic center is
[1:37:24] going to actually like we're going to
[1:37:25] design this plan and they're going to
[1:37:26] start shoveling. We have so much time
[1:37:29] because we don't even have a plan yet
[1:37:33] and I can't even imagine going to the
[1:37:35] voters in March or May because we we you
[1:37:38] know we we we're at the beginning stages
[1:37:40] of this process and then there'll be an
[1:37:42] environmental study and just seeing
[1:37:44] what's going on with our um Bolina storm
[1:37:48] drain where they discovered Indian
[1:37:49] remains and it's slowing the project. So
[1:37:53] there's just a lot of time. I think
[1:37:55] we're excited which is great and we all
[1:37:57] want to do this but but there is time
[1:37:59] and we have thankfully saved 13 million
[1:38:02] in the capital projects. We also have 7
[1:38:05] million of extra reserves. We have a lot
[1:38:07] of cash sitting on hand. So it's not
[1:38:09] that we couldn't spend money on the
[1:38:11] project and continue to move it forward.
[1:38:13] We have the money. We're so fortunate to
[1:38:15] have the money. The bond is really going
[1:38:18] to the public to get their blessing that
[1:38:20] this is the right course. We will know
[1:38:23] that in November because we have an
[1:38:25] election for a new council. I'm I the
[1:38:27] survey is fine. I I I love hearing from
[1:38:29] the people, but we will hear from them
[1:38:31] in November. There'll be a campaign and
[1:38:33] there's going to be four there's four
[1:38:35] candidates for two positions. And so we
[1:38:37] will actually hear what the candidates
[1:38:39] say and what the people want. And I
[1:38:41] think that's going to be telling for
[1:38:42] what sort of project they really are
[1:38:44] supporting. And so once that is done,
[1:38:47] then I think and you have a new council
[1:38:49] seated, then you can start building the trust and the outreach for why this
[1:38:53] project matters and what you want to
[1:38:55] build. So I don't think this needs to be
[1:38:57] decided tonight. I don't I think the
[1:38:59] presentation is very informative, but I
[1:39:01] don't see any hurry to rush to try to
[1:39:03] pass a bond measure. I think a bond
[1:39:05] measure is going to fail because there's
[1:39:08] been so much um information out in the
[1:39:11] public on both sides and this issue has
[1:39:13] been very contentious. It's almost
[1:39:15] better to wait and hopefully let this
[1:39:17] November pass and let the people speak
[1:39:20] and let the town and the the sort of
[1:39:23] opposition fade away because the
[1:39:25] opposition is there. We just we don't
[1:39:28] have a set project even to even think
[1:39:30] about at this point or vote on or send
[1:39:32] to our voters and certainly we won't
[1:39:34] have the clarity we need in November.
[1:39:38] >> Bill comments.
[1:39:40] >> Well, I
[1:39:43] you know I I I've listened carefully to
[1:39:45] the presentation. I think it's a lot of
[1:39:47] interesting information.
[1:39:50] Uh and it's a lot to think about and a
[1:39:52] lot to process.
[1:39:55] But I will say overall
[1:39:57] I think that um I'm beginning to think
[1:40:01] getting something passed in March would
[1:40:03] be very difficult to get to do all the
[1:40:05] things we need to do and let the let
[1:40:09] this project well I think the term was
[1:40:12] mature a bit more. We're we're we're
[1:40:15] moving ahead as quickly as we can but um
[1:40:19] there's so much that would have to
[1:40:20] happen in that time frame. The other
[1:40:22] thing that really impressed me about the
[1:40:24] presentation was
[1:40:26] this the fact that there are a lot of
[1:40:28] ballot measures on the November ballot
[1:40:30] that do involve taxes and ancillary
[1:40:33] considerations
[1:40:35] and there may be a bit of public u well
[1:40:39] I don't know a residue from that that
[1:40:41] may complicate what we're trying to do.
[1:40:44] On the other hand, uh this idea of just
[1:40:46] mail-in only elections in May or August,
[1:40:50] I I I'm not so sure about that one. Um
[1:40:55] that would be um that would be low
[1:40:58] turnout, particularly August.
[1:41:00] So anyway, my thoughts again, I don't I I I would need some time to think
[1:41:04] about this, but those are my
[1:41:06] impressions.
[1:41:08] >> Yeah. And my Julie, can I ask you a
[1:41:11] question first? after after everyone
[1:41:12] speaks, can we share comments about
[1:41:15] comments,
[1:41:18] let me just, you know, just offer a few
[1:41:20] additional comments about what each of
[1:41:22] us said because we're listening to each
[1:41:24] other's comments and thinking about what we said.
[1:41:27] >> As long as we don't have to have
[1:41:28] comments.
[1:41:28] >> Well, and I'm sorry, we don't need to
[1:41:30] decide anything. This isn't this is a no
[1:41:32] action item. I just want to make that
[1:41:34] clear.
[1:41:34] >> Yeah. And that was going to be my
[1:41:36] question, Christa. When do we I mean
[1:41:38] there's that chart with those three, you
[1:41:42] know, blue arrows and then the yellow
[1:41:44] arrow. That chart really kind of scared
[1:41:47] me because there's so much that has to
[1:41:49] happen between now and May, March. Um
[1:41:55] so what what are we doing here tonight?
[1:41:58] So this item is on the agenda just as a
[1:42:00] presentation and an education, an
[1:42:03] opportunity for you to ask questions
[1:42:04] which you have. Um,
[1:42:07] keeping in mind though that that chart
[1:42:10] that you just described is, you know,
[1:42:12] what I've heard from the council these
[1:42:14] past months of regular meetings and
[1:42:17] special meetings and late additions to
[1:42:19] the meetings has been we got to do this
[1:42:22] because it has to be on the March
[1:42:23] agenda. March agenda, March agenda. I
[1:42:25] mean, really, that's what the council
[1:42:27] has been saying loud and clear over and over again. So when I look at
[1:42:32] that that chart and it says, you know,
[1:42:35] we if we want to be doing if if the
[1:42:37] council wants to I didn't hear what
[1:42:39] council member Kercher what his thoughts
[1:42:41] are about um serving, but if the
[1:42:44] consensus of the council is there's an
[1:42:46] interest in serving, we need to be doing
[1:42:48] that now. And it's I need to be bringing
[1:42:50] back to the council a proposal to do
[1:42:54] surveying. and having done it um with a
[1:42:56] council subcommittee at a previous um in
[1:42:59] a previous employment. it putting
[1:43:03] together the survey can be very it took
[1:43:06] many subcommittee meetings and um part
[1:43:08] of it was because the council wanted to
[1:43:10] utilize the survey instrument to ask
[1:43:12] other questions like do people want to
[1:43:14] have a no smoking ban so it could grow
[1:43:17] right so it's it's doing a survey is a
[1:43:20] project itself so doing the project
[1:43:23] along with all the other things and then
[1:43:25] remember we are on we already in week
[1:43:27] one of a 12week uh amendment process
[1:43:31] that I'm very concerned about our
[1:43:34] ability to do all that and I would need
[1:43:36] to be working with Joy and our team on a
[1:43:39] survey like like now to bring it back to
[1:43:41] the council on September 10th. So that
[1:43:43] that's I I I'm interested in direction
[1:43:46] on that particular topic but again I'm
[1:43:49] not sure how much direction you can give
[1:43:51] me tonight. Um I would have to look to
[1:43:53] the turnon for that.
[1:43:57] » Could I comment on the the survey? I
[1:43:59] didn't, as town manager mentioned, I
[1:44:02] didn't didn't say anything about that.
[1:44:05] >> Um,
[1:44:08] can you hear me?
[1:44:09] >> Yeah. Go ahead, Bill.
[1:44:10] >> It's okay. All right. You know, we did a
[1:44:12] survey with regard to the closing of the
[1:44:15] firehouse
[1:44:16] and there's been so much controversy
[1:44:19] about that survey. Was it complete
[1:44:20] enough? Did we have a big big enough
[1:44:22] sample? And that was something just the
[1:44:24] town manager put together as I recall.
[1:44:27] But we we we're still talk we were
[1:44:28] talking about it till fairly recently.
[1:44:31] So as Christa said, I mean this is
[1:44:33] something that takes some time to do and
[1:44:36] it would take a time some time to get
[1:44:38] agreement if there was agreement on how
[1:44:39] it was phrased because you do want the
[1:44:42] answers to be meaningful
[1:44:44] and and so I I think you know
[1:44:47] particularly in a compressed time frame
[1:44:50] I don't see the survey as being that
[1:44:52] doable or that helpful. It might be a
[1:44:54] distraction from other things. our focus
[1:44:56] on making decisions as this goes along
[1:44:59] about about the the what the the Gendler
[1:45:02] firm is doing.
[1:45:09] » Uh um yeah, I I agree with you, Bill. Um
[1:45:14] I mean, I feel like all of this it's
[1:45:16] helpful to have some information. What does March look like? What does May
[1:45:20] look like? But I think I feel like we're
[1:45:22] starting to stray away from, you know,
[1:45:25] the the Gensler CAC plan that we heard
[1:45:29] about in April. That was, you know, a
[1:45:31] really good plan that we all wanted to
[1:45:32] move forward on. And I get that this is
[1:45:35] about uh the steps to move forward. But
[1:45:37] I think we have to be careful we don't
[1:45:39] make so many steps that we're losing the
[1:45:41] momentum that we had on April 29. I I
[1:45:44] have one question. Um I thought it
[1:45:46] wasn't even possible to phase because
[1:45:48] it's a, you know, a big building. So is
[1:45:50] that can I ask Dan you know what how
[1:45:53] would that work? Can this be phased and
[1:45:55] still get the same building? I thought
[1:45:57] that the earlier concept E was phasable
[1:46:01] but I thought that this one wasn't. So I
[1:46:03] that's a question. Can can Dan answer? I
[1:46:08] um I would like to take a stab at that.
[1:46:11] Okay. So the scope of work for our
[1:46:14] consultant team Gendler includes um
[1:46:17] evaluation of phasing.
[1:46:21] So this is going to be this is that that
[1:46:24] issue is going to be evaluated during
[1:46:28] this plan amendment process.
[1:46:30] >> Can I ask Dan's opinion?
[1:46:32] >> But Dan is you well I'm saying Dan is
[1:46:34] not part of the Gendler project team. So
[1:46:37] I can tell you that the Gendler project
[1:46:40] team has assured me and it's in their
[1:46:43] scope of work. It was in the request for
[1:46:45] proposals and it is in their contract to
[1:46:47] perform that.
[1:46:50] Okay. Um
[1:46:53] then back to the just your comments
[1:46:54] about November the election that
[1:46:56] there'll be a you know we we need to see
[1:46:58] where we're going. Again, I I maybe I'm
[1:47:01] more optimistic, but I feel like there's
[1:47:03] a great deal of support for this, for
[1:47:06] moving forward with this, whatever the
[1:47:07] steps are, and that there's not any
[1:47:09] change in November, because there's not
[1:47:11] a single candidate who doesn't agree
[1:47:12] that we should move forward with this.
[1:47:14] So, I I don't see that this is uh I
[1:47:17] mean, there may be some issues about how um focused are you on building a
[1:47:22] fire station, but that's not really the
[1:47:24] building plan. The building plan is to
[1:47:25] get this built. So I don't see that
[1:47:28] November is a is a turning point. I
[1:47:30] think the turning point was April with
[1:47:32] the very beautiful Gendler CAC plan and
[1:47:35] that we should stay on track with that
[1:47:37] and not take too many steps to get it
[1:47:39] going.
[1:47:42] I I guess my I I think I would like to
[1:47:46] have like a critical path schedule of
[1:47:50] November November of 2027,
[1:47:54] August, May, and March and all the stuff
[1:47:57] that needs to happen to lead up to each
[1:48:01] of those dates to see, you know, this is
[1:48:04] a huge component of all of that, but
[1:48:06] there's so many other lines like, you
[1:48:10] know, the environment enironmental
[1:48:11] stuff, the the description of the
[1:48:14] project, um the cost estimate, the bond
[1:48:17] council. I mean, it's just layers and
[1:48:20] layers of complexity. Um, and so I think
[1:48:23] it would help me. I don't know if it
[1:48:25] would help other people, but I think it
[1:48:27] would help to what Richard Hanam said a few weeks ago, take the end date. And
[1:48:34] now, unfortunately, there's like four
[1:48:36] end dates and move back and see, you
[1:48:39] know, is is it feasible to get to a
[1:48:42] March election date?
[1:48:44] >> That chart scares me. Is it feasible to
[1:48:47] get to a May 4th election date? You
[1:48:49] know, hopefully it is. Um, I don't think
[1:48:52] we want to be in a position where we're,
[1:48:54] you know, spending money that we may not
[1:48:57] have. I think that we need to have
[1:48:59] certainty with having a a bond passed if
[1:49:02] we're going to do the whole project. If
[1:49:03] we're going to phase it, then we can dip
[1:49:05] into that 13.9
[1:49:08] or whatever it is. Um,
[1:49:11] but it I think maybe start at the end
[1:49:14] and kind of move back in terms of the
[1:49:16] election and and then there's the
[1:49:18] penultimate date of the, you know, the
[1:49:21] January 1st, 2029 delivery of the
[1:49:23] paramedic facility. I mean, that's the key. That's the most
[1:49:28] important thing. Um, and I don't know if
[1:49:31] we have capacity within if David could
[1:49:34] help do that. Um, I think that would be
[1:49:38] helpful. And then are we gonna bring
[1:49:40] this matter back in a month or two to
[1:49:43] continue discussing or how how do we
[1:49:46] move forward from here?
[1:49:48] >> Well, I I there's I what I'm hearing
[1:49:51] this evening, there's not consensus of
[1:49:52] the council to go forward with the
[1:49:53] survey. So, that's good direction for
[1:49:56] me, at least at this time. So, that's
[1:49:58] good direction for me. Um, and we we've
[1:50:03] I've engaged the services of Joyy's firm
[1:50:06] to help us with this. And it's uh, you
[1:50:08] know, it's a it's a monthly fee. So, we pay we use it where how much I could
[1:50:12] call her every day.
[1:50:14] >> She could come to meetings here every day if we needed it, right? Um, so
[1:50:20] we need to just we need to be moving
[1:50:22] forward. I mean, we have a deadline
[1:50:24] today. Our first deadline with Gendler,
[1:50:26] our contract started a week ago. Our
[1:50:27] first deadline, staff deadline was
[1:50:29] today. And so, um, we need to be moving
[1:50:32] this forward to to meet that 12week. And
[1:50:36] for me, it's the most important thing
[1:50:39] are the council decisions that are going
[1:50:40] to have to take place. That is what is
[1:50:43] driving is going to drive this this
[1:50:45] project. Are you going to be able to
[1:50:48] make decisions to provide direction to
[1:50:52] your staff team and your consultant
[1:50:54] team?
[1:50:56] much. So, as as for this, we we have an
[1:50:59] agreement with um Joy and her firm, and
[1:51:02] we will continue. We uh David and I have
[1:51:04] a meeting scheduled, and we'll probably
[1:51:06] be including Joy with our U municipal
[1:51:09] financial advisor. Um I'd like to have
[1:51:12] it would be good to have more feedback.
[1:51:14] I I I hadn't heard from council member
[1:51:18] that he was not as much of a um emphatic
[1:51:21] about that march about doing a march
[1:51:23] batlet. So, I think that alone was
[1:51:25] really useful for me and our team to
[1:51:28] hear um that maybe there's some little
[1:51:31] more flexibility in that March date. So,
[1:51:35] the good news is we have meetings with
[1:51:37] the council every two weeks so we can
[1:51:41] bring something back.
[1:51:42] >> Yippee. That's good news for you.
[1:51:47] >> Okay. Any Terry? I just wanted to say I
[1:51:50] for me I don't want anything to derail
[1:51:53] the staff over the next 12 weeks. The
[1:51:56] next 12 weeks are really important.
[1:51:58] We've got a contract. We've got work we
[1:52:00] have to do. Uh Gendler is got work they
[1:52:04] have to do. That should be our top
[1:52:06] priority.
[1:52:08] And fitting in the work with joy is
[1:52:11] great,
[1:52:12] but it can't derail those 12 weeks of
[1:52:15] the work that has to be done.
[1:52:19] I think the the most important thing is
[1:52:21] that we can pass the bond measure,
[1:52:24] right? So that in order to pass the bond
[1:52:27] measure, we need a fully baked plan that
[1:52:31] everyone is behind that the community
[1:52:33] understands and supports and that we can
[1:52:35] get the engagement with. We're nowhere
[1:52:38] near that. We we it's impossible at this
[1:52:40] moment even to contemplate that at this
[1:52:42] moment at this juncture. So, I think we
[1:52:45] just need to be realistic that trying to
[1:52:47] push for something that doesn't exist is
[1:52:49] not going to make it all of a sudden
[1:52:50] exist. I think we are all excited about
[1:52:54] the project and moving forward and it's
[1:52:56] very the that there we're meeting every
[1:52:58] week for 12 weeks. So, it's not that
[1:53:00] we're not moving forward, but we the
[1:53:02] idea of a political process is to get it
[1:53:04] passed. We need to get 66%. How do we
[1:53:08] get that? And I would that is what you
[1:53:10] need to work on is we now have enough
[1:53:12] information to sell the public that
[1:53:14] we've the community we've all come
[1:53:16] together and we have a great plan. We're
[1:53:18] just not there yet.
[1:53:21] >> And I'll just add and maybe I shouldn't
[1:53:24] but I will. But I I think the public
[1:53:26] trust component is huge and I think the
[1:53:30] um there's aspects of the community that
[1:53:33] are pretty divided right now. And I
[1:53:35] think the um November 3rd election is
[1:53:38] just going to divide the community even
[1:53:40] more. So I think knowing that and having
[1:53:43] something on the heels of a pretty
[1:53:45] divisive town council election is
[1:53:48] probably not great timing. And Elizabeth
[1:53:52] and I worked on a school bond measure um
[1:53:56] that failed um in I think it was 2004.
[1:54:01] Um, and it just took a tiny tiny bit of
[1:54:05] opponents to derail that. And it wasn't
[1:54:08] many, and you know, we had drunk the
[1:54:10] Kool-Aid, but we really thought it was
[1:54:13] going to pass and it didn't. Um, we got
[1:54:16] 59%. Um, and it took a long time for the
[1:54:20] community to heal and pivot and readress
[1:54:25] those needs. Um, we had a silver lining
[1:54:28] with a flood, so that helped. Um, but we
[1:54:31] don't we we don't want to do this twice.
[1:54:34] We have to do it well and successfully
[1:54:37] one time.
[1:54:39] So,
[1:54:40] yeah. Excuse me, mayor. I'm sorry. I
[1:54:43] didn't catch Did you Were you interested
[1:54:45] in the survey now?
[1:54:47] >> Oh, I didn't know pine about that. I
[1:54:48] thought I was getting away with not
[1:54:49] opining.
[1:54:50] >> Well, I was looking at my notes here and
[1:54:51] I I have two yeses and two nos. So I
[1:54:55] >> um I think if the survey helps inform the
[1:55:01] ballot language for the general
[1:55:03] obligation bond um then I would be more
[1:55:06] inclined to do that. Um but I think the
[1:55:09] timing of the survey would be important.
[1:55:11] I think there would need to be distance.
[1:55:13] You know, I hadn't appreciated all these
[1:55:15] other things that are going to be going
[1:55:17] on the November ballot and the voter
[1:55:19] fatigue and people are going to be sick
[1:55:22] of dealing with elections for a while
[1:55:24] and these issues. So, I think the timing
[1:55:28] of the survey would be important.
[1:55:30] >> Okay. So, we can bring we can something
[1:55:32] the council can continue to to discuss
[1:55:34] as the we go further along on this
[1:55:36] process.
[1:55:37] >> Ballot ballot language not isn't that
[1:55:39] hard. I mean, we'll want to work
[1:55:40] together on ballot language and the
[1:55:42] ballot argument, but I don't see that as
[1:55:45] something that we need a survey for, but
[1:55:49] >> well, I think I guess I don't know. I
[1:55:51] guess I don't quite understand what how
[1:55:52] a survey helps us pass the bond. I see
[1:55:55] where trust and information one-on-one
[1:55:58] outreach helps us pass the bond measure.
[1:56:00] I don't quite see how a survey does, but
[1:56:03] I I already came out saying that's
[1:56:05] >> we don't have to decide tonight. So um
[1:56:08] and this was really really helpful. So
[1:56:11] thank you very much for organizing and
[1:56:13] for being here really illuminating.
[1:56:16] Thank you.
[1:56:21] » Okay. Now we are moving on to item
[1:56:24] number 11. town council to receive a
[1:56:28] presentation, provide direction to staff
[1:56:30] on the scope and priorities for the
[1:56:32] general plan update and consider
[1:56:34] authorizing staff to initiate a request
[1:56:36] for proposal RFP for consultant services
[1:56:40] to assist with the general plan update.
[1:56:43] Robera,
[1:56:44] >> good evening mayor and council members.
[1:56:47] So, if you recall in the August 2025
[1:56:51] meeting last year, I presented a similar
[1:56:55] item. It's really just a presentation to
[1:56:58] let you know that the current general
[1:57:01] plan has passed its horizon. It was
[1:57:03] adopted in 2007 and it had an horizon to
[1:57:07] 2025 which was last year. Um, but having
[1:57:11] said that, you know, there really is no
[1:57:15] penalty per se for having an expired
[1:57:18] general plan other than there could be
[1:57:21] certain state grant funding that we
[1:57:24] might not be eligible for and um really
[1:57:28] a lot of that funding is related to the
[1:57:30] housing element and a lot of housing
[1:57:32] efforts. That was the last grant we
[1:57:35] received which did go towards the
[1:57:37] housing element update. And so some of
[1:57:41] the options as laid out last year is
[1:57:44] just doing a technical update and
[1:57:46] refresh of the general plan. Um the RFP
[1:57:49] could outline that. It sounded like
[1:57:52] during the housing element, uh,
[1:57:54] community outreach, there was some
[1:57:56] interest in possible historic resources
[1:58:00] and coming up with a, um, inventory and
[1:58:04] historic context statement for some of
[1:58:07] the historic properties in the town.
[1:58:10] That's an option. Um, let's see. Another
[1:58:13] option that was important to the council
[1:58:16] and the compete and the community
[1:58:18] members is updating and analyzing a new
[1:58:22] land use for smaller non-conforming lots
[1:58:25] like the ones along Bolinus and Popppler
[1:58:28] Avenue. That's something we could add to
[1:58:30] the general plan update. And then of
[1:58:33] course you can do a very extensive
[1:58:36] general plan update which would include
[1:58:38] additional elements um extensive
[1:58:41] outreach. Uh the good news is that um
[1:58:44] the town has in the general plan fund
[1:58:48] over $600,000.
[1:58:51] So we do have the money for any of these
[1:58:53] options should the council decide that
[1:58:56] you do want to go ahead and proceed with
[1:58:58] the RFP and starting the general general
[1:59:01] plan update process. And I'm happy to
[1:59:05] answer any questions and also just get
[1:59:07] your feedback and direction.
[1:59:09] >> Questions Terry?
[1:59:12] So, Robera, can this be put off until
[1:59:14] 2027? Do we have to do anything about it
[1:59:17] right now? We've got a lot on our plate
[1:59:19] for the next 12 weeks.
[1:59:21] >> Yes.
[1:59:21] >> Can we just say we'll get to it in 2027?
[1:59:26] >> I would love nothing more. I mean, there
[1:59:28] is a lot on all of our plate.
[1:59:31] >> Yeah.
[1:59:32] >> Uh it's Rich's first week gone. So,
[1:59:35] right, people are going, "Who's going to
[1:59:38] do this survey? and who's going to look
[1:59:39] at this drainage? And so I'm going John
[1:59:43] Mo, right? I'm I'm call I'm also talking
[1:59:46] to the interim town engineer. Um we did
[1:59:49] have our first kickoff meeting with
[1:59:51] Gendler and today we did have some
[1:59:53] homework that was due. So yes, there are
[1:59:56] certainly a lot of priorities that I
[1:59:59] would say are probably above this.
[2:00:03] >> I have had the same question. There are
[2:00:05] no consequences if we put it off. You
[2:00:08] know, I think we should. Okay. Thanks,
[2:00:10] >> Robera. I'm wondering if you do you know
[2:00:12] what the status is of the public works
[2:00:15] director position as other people were
[2:00:17] interviewing. I'm just curious what the
[2:00:19] status is of that.
[2:00:20] >> I believe Christa provided an update on
[2:00:22] that. So, they did hire the town is
[2:00:24] getting a um recruitment firm and I
[2:00:28] believe interviews would be in October.
[2:00:29] So, hopefully sometime around there.
[2:00:32] But, you know, for the next couple of
[2:00:33] months, we do have David as our interim
[2:00:36] public works director and then we do
[2:00:38] have a consultant who's our interim town
[2:00:40] engineer and that's how we've been um
[2:00:43] working through or filling that vacancy
[2:00:45] for the time being. That's not to say
[2:00:48] that people still aren't coming in or
[2:00:50] talking to me and taking up my time
[2:00:52] because they know I'm there and they've
[2:00:54] talked to me before. I'm familiar. Yeah.
[2:01:00] Bill, do you have any any questions?
[2:01:04] >> No. Thank you.
[2:01:05] >> Okay. Um, public comment on this item.
[2:01:09] Anybody online?
[2:01:10] >> No one online, Mayor.
[2:01:11] >> Okay. I'll just I'll just start. I agree
[2:01:13] that I don't think we should be doing
[2:01:16] this now. Um, we can revisit in August
[2:01:20] of 2027.
[2:01:22] Um, that's probably not going to be a
[2:01:24] great time either, frankly. Um, but the other thing I just noted was just to
[2:01:32] do the technical update was $400,000 and
[2:01:35] then these adders are like another
[2:01:38] hundred. So you get to 500 and then to
[2:01:40] do the comprehensive is 600. So it
[2:01:43] doesn't make sense to me not to do the
[2:01:44] comprehensive once we're ready to do the
[2:01:47] comprehensive. I remember from uh when
[2:01:50] we did this um 20 25 years ago, it was
[2:01:55] an extensive process that took about a
[2:01:58] year and a half with tons of meetings
[2:02:00] and workshops and building consensus and
[2:02:04] um so it's it's a it's really involved
[2:02:08] for the community as well as the
[2:02:10] consultant. So I'm all for continuing
[2:02:14] and doing this later.
[2:02:17] >> Me too.
[2:02:19] I mean, nobody ever wants to do these
[2:02:22] things. So, I think whenever it comes
[2:02:24] back, it's going to be a big project. I totally agree with that. The issue is
[2:02:29] that I think the number one issue I get,
[2:02:31] and I think a lot of people my age are
[2:02:34] building, is the red tape, is the the
[2:02:37] variances, is the process to get stuff
[2:02:40] built in town is very, very cumbersome
[2:02:42] and expensive. And um you know it's
[2:02:47] something we have to address and you
[2:02:49] know all these projects it's so
[2:02:50] interesting when it comes here we three
[2:02:52] projects I don't think anyone asked a
[2:02:55] single question and we all just voted
[2:02:57] them through and I I actually really
[2:02:59] appreciate that about this council is
[2:03:00] that we very rarely debate a lot of the
[2:03:03] projects and and the ADR does a very
[2:03:05] good job. But we we have to streamline
[2:03:08] these processes for our residents. It is
[2:03:10] the number one complaint I get over and they're like, I didn't I
[2:03:15] thought the town was so great until I I
[2:03:18] decided to build something. And then I
[2:03:20] think at the table today, Elizabeth
[2:03:22] heard complaints about the trucks and
[2:03:24] the parking. And there's just things
[2:03:26] about living in the town we need to
[2:03:27] address. And uh this is the place to do
[2:03:30] that. And and and so I I really feel
[2:03:33] like at some point, maybe it's not
[2:03:35] today, deciding this. So I'm okay. I
[2:03:38] actually think I would wait till after
[2:03:39] November so we the council is formed.
[2:03:43] But it's something we can't just keep
[2:03:45] kicking down the road because we're
[2:03:47] really doing a disservice to the
[2:03:48] residents by not addressing how the town
[2:03:50] functions and what our vision is.
[2:03:53] >> Can I comment? I I do think this
[2:03:57] upcoming year we'll be asking people to
[2:03:59] weigh in on the building and on the bond
[2:04:01] measure and so I hate I I think it's
[2:04:03] confusing to have them weigh in on
[2:04:04] something else. Um I do agree there are differences of opinion about
[2:04:08] how about building um but at the same
[2:04:11] time you hear about the building issues.
[2:04:13] You hear about people who want to keep
[2:04:14] this is a lovely charming small town. So
[2:04:17] I think that'll be an interesting
[2:04:18] discussion to kind of balance people who
[2:04:20] want to build with balance with the
[2:04:23] character of the town. But I don't think
[2:04:25] that we're ready to have that discussion
[2:04:27] right now. I I think it everything
[2:04:29] should be focused on the building and
[2:04:30] the bond measure so that we try to get
[2:04:32] unity around that and no not disunityity
[2:04:35] around something else.
[2:04:39] >> Bill, do you have any comments?
[2:04:43] >> No, I I you know I'm I'm listening to
[2:04:46] all of this other than that I think this
[2:04:48] is is something that we could deal with
[2:04:50] next year. U that that resonates. We we
[2:04:54] really have our hands full right now.
[2:04:56] >> Yeah. Okay. Um,
[2:04:59] we don't need a vote on this, right?
[2:05:02] >> Great. Okay.
[2:05:04] Moving on to
[2:05:07] number 12. Thank you, Roberta.
[2:05:11] Town council to consider introduction of
[2:05:13] ordinance number 738 to amend the town
[2:05:16] of Ross municipal code to allow for
[2:05:18] different project delivery methods.
[2:05:21] >> David.
[2:05:22] >> Good. Good evening, Mayor McMillan,
[2:05:23] Mayor Proen Robbins, honorable council
[2:05:25] members. I'm I'm David Kelly. I'm your
[2:05:27] interim public works director and
[2:05:29] project manager. Uh the item before you
[2:05:31] this evening is first reading of
[2:05:33] ordinance number 738.
[2:05:36] would amend section
[2:05:39] 2.4 or excuse me, chapter 2.4 of the
[2:05:42] municipal code. Uh this ordinance is a
[2:05:46] reflection of the uh direction received
[2:05:49] from council uh at your July 9th meeting
[2:05:52] in which you received a presentation uh
[2:05:54] by staff and Griffin structures
[2:05:57] regarding alternative procurement
[2:05:59] methods which included uh the
[2:06:02] traditional uh design bid build but uh
[2:06:05] additional procurement methods including
[2:06:07] a design build and progressive design
[2:06:10] build. And at that council meeting, we
[2:06:12] shared staff shared with you that uh by a simple amendment of your ordinance,
[2:06:17] it could enable uh council to authorize
[2:06:21] the use of a design build and
[2:06:23] progressive design build. So with the
[2:06:26] town attorney's assistance, the uh an
[2:06:28] ordinance was a drafted that would amend
[2:06:31] the code to provide the council the
[2:06:34] opportunity uh to utilize those
[2:06:36] alternative procurement methods.
[2:06:38] Included in your packet is a copy of the
[2:06:41] draft ordinance. Uh, and tonight, this
[2:06:43] is a hearing to conduct the first
[2:06:45] reading of that ordinance. Uh, again,
[2:06:48] the ordinance was drafted by your town
[2:06:50] attorney's office. Uh, but staff is here
[2:06:52] to entertain any questions as I'm sure
[2:06:54] uh is your as your town attorney has
[2:06:58] >> questions? Anybody?
[2:07:01] >> Any public comment on this?
[2:07:03] >> No one online, mayor.
[2:07:05] >> Great. So, we'll bring it back for a
[2:07:07] motion.
[2:07:08] >> I move we adopt ordinance 738.
[2:07:12] Oh, do I have to read it?
[2:07:18] » Oh, I see. I So, I move that we
[2:07:22] receive the inter
[2:07:23] >> go to the first reading of ordinance
[2:07:25] 738.
[2:07:28] » I'll second.
[2:07:31] » Motion by Mayor Prom Robbins, second by
[2:07:33] council member Dingley. Mayor McMillan.
[2:07:35] Yes.
[2:07:36] >> Mayor Potm Robbins.
[2:07:37] >> Yes.
[2:07:38] >> Council member Kercher.
[2:07:39] >> Yes.
[2:07:40] >> Council member Dowling.
[2:07:41] >> Yes.
[2:07:41] >> Council member Salter.
[2:07:43] >> Yes.
[2:07:43] >> Motion passes unanimously.
[2:07:46] >> Thank you.
[2:07:50] » Item number 13. Thank you, David. Town
[2:07:54] council to consider approving the town
[2:07:56] of Ross response to the Marin County
[2:07:58] civil grand jury report entitled Better
[2:08:01] Service at Lower Cost. Optimizing
[2:08:03] essential services for the future of
[2:08:05] Marin.
[2:08:08] Zach.
[2:08:10] >> Good evening, mayor and council members.
[2:08:12] For the record, my name is Zach Kob
[2:08:14] DeLeon and I am the town clerk and
[2:08:15] senior management analyst. Agenda item
[2:08:18] number 13 is in regard to the town's
[2:08:20] formal response to the 2025 2026
[2:08:24] Marin civil grand jury report. Better
[2:08:26] service at lower cost optimizing
[2:08:29] essential services for the future of
[2:08:30] Marin. The report looks at more than 50
[2:08:33] special districts in Marin County that
[2:08:36] provide services like fire, water,
[2:08:38] sanitation, and refues. It concludes
[2:08:40] that their fragmented structure creates
[2:08:42] duplicated administration, uneven
[2:08:45] service and fees, and limited capacity
[2:08:47] for long-term investment. It calls on
[2:08:49] district boards working with the county
[2:08:51] to pursue collaboration, shared
[2:08:53] services, and where appropriate,
[2:08:54] consolidation.
[2:08:56] The report includes seven findings and
[2:08:58] nine recommendations. Under state law,
[2:09:00] the town is required to respond to all
[2:09:02] nine nine of them within 90 days, the
[2:09:04] deadline for which is September 9, 2026.
[2:09:07] The town's draft response is included in
[2:09:09] your agenda packet. In the draft
[2:09:12] responses, the town agrees with findings
[2:09:14] F1 through F6 and partial partially
[2:09:17] disagrees with F7. Our partial
[2:09:19] disagreement is narrow. We agree that
[2:09:22] proactive reform is preferable to
[2:09:24] crisisdriven change, but we don't accept
[2:09:26] that the crisis intervention is the
[2:09:28] likely default outcome. Many districts,
[2:09:31] including those in the Ross Valley,
[2:09:33] continue to deliver reliable service and
[2:09:35] can pursue collaboration on a measured
[2:09:37] timeline. Pace and sequencing
[2:09:39] appropriately remain matters of local
[2:09:41] judgment. On the recommendations, all
[2:09:44] nine are directed to either the board of
[2:09:45] supervisors or to the governing boards
[2:09:47] of independently governed special
[2:09:49] districts. As a general law town, Ross
[2:09:52] has no authority to implement any of
[2:09:54] them. So, the town's draft responses to
[2:09:56] R9, R1 through R9 are that they are not
[2:09:59] applicable to the town while noting our
[2:10:01] support for the report's goals. Staff
[2:10:04] recommends that council approve the
[2:10:05] responses and authorize the mayor to
[2:10:08] sign the response form. I'm happy to
[2:10:10] answer any questions.
[2:10:12] >> Questions?
[2:10:15] >> Um, public comment?
[2:10:17] >> No one online. Mayor,
[2:10:19] >> great.
[2:10:20] um motion.
[2:10:22] >> Yep.
[2:10:23] >> So, I I think it's important. Thank you
[2:10:25] for drafting this. In the report, there
[2:10:28] was um language about the the debate
[2:10:31] we're having about our fire station that
[2:10:34] was sent out to the public. And I think
[2:10:36] it's important we address that in our
[2:10:38] response. Um, so I have um I have
[2:10:42] language that I'd like to suggest to add
[2:10:44] to the document, which is that Ross is a
[2:10:48] member of the Ross Valley Fire
[2:10:50] Department. Neither the town nor its
[2:10:52] residents have advocated for a
[2:10:54] standalone fire station. And number two,
[2:10:57] the debate has centered on whether to
[2:10:58] reopen the Ross Fire Station to restore
[2:11:01] emergency medical and fire response
[2:11:03] times that meet accepted industry
[2:11:05] standards.
[2:11:08] Are we allowed to do that if it's not a
[2:11:10] question that the grand jury is asking
[2:11:12] us to respond to?
[2:11:16] >> I'm happy to answer that question. So,
[2:11:17] the response to a grand jury is very uh
[2:11:19] is prescribed by the penal code of the
[2:11:21] format that's before you tonight. So you
[2:11:24] can certainly look at these findings and
[2:11:26] make if there's a finding in there
[2:11:27] that's drafted that you want to address
[2:11:30] some of those comments to it have to be
[2:11:31] within that context of the findings uh
[2:11:34] that the town clerk has provided as as
[2:11:37] the draft. Um but there's not some sort
[2:11:39] of introduction or other area where you you come up with a statement of
[2:11:46] it's you you have to respond to the
[2:11:48] findings and respond to the
[2:11:49] recommendations.
[2:11:50] >> Okay. Okay. Well, I'm sure we can attach
[2:11:52] it to one of the findings because for
[2:11:55] some it's about having a standalone um
[2:11:58] entity versus being part of a larger um
[2:12:02] service area. I mean that's basically
[2:12:06] even finding one the current fragmented
[2:12:08] structure of special districts results
[2:12:10] in unnecessary duplication of
[2:12:12] administrative services and operational
[2:12:14] efficiencies. We totally agree which is
[2:12:17] why we're members of the Ross Valley
[2:12:18] Fire Department. So I I actually don't
[2:12:21] know why there's any objection to this
[2:12:23] because we're actually already a part of
[2:12:26] the fire district. Our fire is part of
[2:12:28] the fire district.
[2:12:31] >> Maybe if it's better for five. It says
[2:12:34] service and pricing inequities currently
[2:12:36] exist across Marin and may increase if
[2:12:38] consolidation and functional
[2:12:39] collaboration do not accelerate. And
[2:12:41] your point is that we're not opposing
[2:12:44] collabor. We're not opposing
[2:12:46] consolidation. We're not moving towards
[2:12:48] our own private station.
[2:12:50] >> Correct. I mean, we can attach it to any
[2:12:52] one of these, but because the grand jury
[2:12:54] misstated
[2:12:56] what what the town is doing and nobody
[2:12:59] has advocated for that, um, we I want it
[2:13:02] in the in our response. I mean, it needs
[2:13:03] to be clarified, especially because it
[2:13:06] was broadcast to the the community.
[2:13:08] >> Actually, I did not broadcast erroneous
[2:13:11] information to the community. I simply
[2:13:14] quoted verbatim what the grand jury
[2:13:16] report said and I happen to have the
[2:13:19] quote right here which is the grand jury
[2:13:23] said um the fourth rationale is a
[2:13:26] textbook case of misguided civic
[2:13:28] engagement at odds with effective
[2:13:30] services today modern efficiency depends
[2:13:34] on shared regional services not
[2:13:36] maintaining standalone structures note
[2:13:39] it does not say department it says
[2:13:41] standalone structure es for symbolic
[2:13:44] reasons building for yesterday. The
[2:13:47] grand jury characterizes FOR's arguments
[2:13:49] as emotional resistance to modernization
[2:13:51] driven by small groups of residents who
[2:13:54] lobby for outdated solutions that are
[2:13:56] not based on current and future needs.
[2:14:00] So I would oppose your characterization.
[2:14:02] >> Okay. So the quote continues, Ross risk
[2:14:05] profile has also changed stronger
[2:14:07] building standards. Staffing a
[2:14:10] standalone station is easy to demand but
[2:14:13] difficult to sustain according to local.
[2:14:16] So we're talking about a standalone
[2:14:18] station versus being a part of we're
[2:14:21] already part of the Ross Valley Fire
[2:14:22] Department.
[2:14:23] >> So I don't I mean Julie if you really
[2:14:25] want to go there we could talk about the
[2:14:27] police. We have our own police force. Do
[2:14:29] you believe we should be getting closing
[2:14:31] our police station as well and just
[2:14:33] relying on you know centralized police
[2:14:36] force? So th this is a we can take it
[2:14:39] any direction you'd like. You brought
[2:14:40] this into the public fold and I would
[2:14:42] like it clarified.
[2:14:43] >> All I did was quote what the grand jury
[2:14:45] report said verbatim. That's all
[2:14:47] >> I know. And and they misrepresented what
[2:14:49] this argument is about. And so I think
[2:14:52] we absolutely should clarify it for the
[2:14:54] public because that is not been one one
[2:14:57] piece of information. And the friends of
[2:14:59] the Ross Firehouse have also clarified
[2:15:02] that they were part of the Ross and they
[2:15:03] sent a an a correction to the town. So I
[2:15:06] don't know why this
[2:15:08] >> other than unless you want to let's
[2:15:11] reopen the talk about police station and
[2:15:13] what you what what
[2:15:14] >> that's a nonsequ it's it's the same
[2:15:17] >> we're not the we're not talking about
[2:15:19] that.
[2:15:19] >> I do think it's I mean if you if there's
[2:15:21] a role for putting in uh you know that Ross isn't focusing on a standalone
[2:15:28] station in one of these findings. I'm
[2:15:30] not opposed to that because Ross isn't
[2:15:32] focusing on a standalone station. But I
[2:15:35] don't I'm not quite sure which finding
[2:15:37] it goes to and I'm not sure there's a
[2:15:42] >> you're not I'm sorry, Elizabeth.
[2:15:44] >> No, no. I'm just saying I see can see
[2:15:45] that you wouldn't want to put it in
[2:15:46] anyway.
[2:15:47] >> Yes. It doesn't answer. It's not it
[2:15:50] doesn't fit into the I mean there's so
[2:15:53] grand jury when you're asked to respond.
[2:15:55] It's it's
[2:15:57] >> it's sort of black and white and you
[2:15:59] can't add your own sort of other agendas
[2:16:02] to it. So, does anyone besides Matt want
[2:16:05] to add this uh language?
[2:16:07] >> She does. So,
[2:16:10] >> something about that Ross isn't focusing
[2:16:12] on a standalone station under maybe F5,
[2:16:15] but
[2:16:16] >> I don't know that we have three votes
[2:16:17] for that, but that's
[2:16:18] >> Well, that's what I would I would be
[2:16:20] okay with that because it's it's it is
[2:16:23] sort of relevant. They're talking about
[2:16:24] consolidation and they kind of made it
[2:16:26] sound like Ross is working on a
[2:16:28] standalone station, which isn't the
[2:16:30] goal. So, but let's see what people
[2:16:32] think. Well, the language says
[2:16:35] standalone structure.
[2:16:36] >> It says standalone station staffing a
[2:16:39] standalone station
[2:16:40] >> subsequent to the standalone structure.
[2:16:42] Matt, it's focused on standalone
[2:16:44] structure. So, I would be opposed to
[2:16:46] adding anything to
[2:16:50] that's not relevant to the responses
[2:16:52] that Zach already drafted.
[2:16:54] >> So, let's hear from Bill.
[2:16:56] >> Poor Bill. Yeah, I I mean I hear your
[2:16:59] point, Matt, but I I I I think, you
[2:17:02] know, we we should just focus on a
[2:17:04] specific findings uh and recommendations
[2:17:08] as opposed to what else is in the
[2:17:10] report.
[2:17:12] So, no, I I would not be in favor of
[2:17:14] adding this, although I do take your
[2:17:15] point.
[2:17:17] >> Okay. Well,
[2:17:19] the council has spoken.
[2:17:21] >> Do we need to make a motion to approve
[2:17:23] this?
[2:17:24] >> Yes.
[2:17:25] Can someone make a motion, please?
[2:17:30] » Um, I move that the council approve the
[2:17:35] town of Ross's response to the Bane
[2:17:37] County Grand Jury report and authorizes
[2:17:40] the mayor to sign the response form.
[2:17:44] >> Is there a second?
[2:17:46] I'll second.
[2:17:50] » Motion by council member Dalian, second
[2:17:52] by Mayor McMillan. Mayor McMillan. I
[2:17:55] >> mayor prom.
[2:17:56] >> No.
[2:17:57] >> Council member Kercher.
[2:17:59] >> Hi.
[2:18:00] >> Council member Dowling.
[2:18:01] >> I.
[2:18:01] >> Council member Salter.
[2:18:03] >> No.
[2:18:03] >> Motion passes. 32.
[2:18:10] » Okay. Number 14.
[2:18:13] town council to consider approving the
[2:18:15] town of Ross response
[2:18:18] to the Marin County Civil Grand Jury
[2:18:20] report entitled MCE Marine Clean Energy.
[2:18:24] A series of missteps highlight need for
[2:18:26] governance changes.
[2:18:28] Zack,
[2:18:32] » good evening, mayor and council members.
[2:18:34] Again, agenda number 14 is in regard to
[2:18:36] the town's formal response to the civil
[2:18:38] grand jury report, MCE, Marine Clean
[2:18:41] Energy. A series of missteps highlight
[2:18:43] need for governance changes. MCE is a
[2:18:46] joint powers authority of 38 member
[2:18:48] agencies across four counties which
[2:18:50] include the town of Ross. It's
[2:18:52] California's first community choice
[2:18:54] aggregator, CCA, and one of the largest
[2:18:57] serving more than 1.5 million customers.
[2:19:00] As a CCA, MCE handles electricity
[2:19:03] generation while PG&E still handles
[2:19:05] transmission, distribution, and billing.
[2:19:07] The report is critical of the AY's
[2:19:09] governance practices. The report
[2:19:11] includes 14 findings and 13
[2:19:13] recommendations.
[2:19:15] MCE must respond to all of them. Marine
[2:19:17] cities and towns, including Ross, are
[2:19:20] required to respond to just two findings
[2:19:21] and two recommendations, F4 and F5 and
[2:19:25] R5 and R six, respectively. On the
[2:19:28] findings, the town agrees with both. F4
[2:19:32] recognizes that MCE is a large and
[2:19:34] complex agency and that board members
[2:19:36] who are local elected officials have
[2:19:38] understandably limited expertise in
[2:19:40] energy markets and utility finance. F5
[2:19:43] recognizes that board members face
[2:19:44] competing demands on their time which
[2:19:46] has affected attendance. On that point,
[2:19:49] I'll note that Ross has made a
[2:19:50] consistent effort to be represented
[2:19:52] including sending an alternate when our
[2:19:54] primary representative is unavailable.
[2:19:56] On the recommendations, the town agrees
[2:19:59] with R5, which calls for a process
[2:20:02] ensuring the board member or an
[2:20:03] alternate commits to attending each
[2:20:05] meeting. The town partially agrees with
[2:20:07] R six, which calls for prioritizing
[2:20:09] appointees with the most extensive
[2:20:11] financial and energy expertise. We
[2:20:13] support the goal, but for a small
[2:20:15] jurisdiction like Ross with a five
[2:20:17] member council, it isn't always
[2:20:18] realistic to have a member with that
[2:20:20] specialized background. Our position is
[2:20:22] that expertise is important, but should
[2:20:24] be weighed alongside attendance.
[2:20:26] availability, institutional knowledge,
[2:20:28] and the ability to serve consistently
[2:20:30] rather than being the overriding factor.
[2:20:33] For context, MCE's executive committee
[2:20:35] voted in July to form an ad hoc
[2:20:38] committee to draft the agency's own
[2:20:40] response, which goes to its full board
[2:20:42] on August 20th. However, the town's
[2:20:44] response deadline is September 14, 2026.
[2:20:47] Staff recommends the council approve the
[2:20:49] response and authorize the mayor to
[2:20:51] sign. I'm happy to answer any questions.
[2:20:54] >> Questions?
[2:20:57] Um public comment.
[2:20:59] >> No one online. Mayor,
[2:21:00] >> thank you. Um bring it back for
[2:21:02] discussion or a motion.
[2:21:05] >> So um I have an issue with R six. I
[2:21:09] think that we should be prioritizing um
[2:21:12] you know financial and energy expertise
[2:21:14] and it we do not have to appoint a
[2:21:16] council member to serve on the board. It
[2:21:18] could be a resident. It could be anyone.
[2:21:21] And I do think that given that I am the
[2:21:24] council member who has the most
[2:21:26] financial expertise being a CFA charter
[2:21:28] holder and I was removed from the
[2:21:30] position for for talking about the
[2:21:33] corruption that was basically coming out
[2:21:35] in this report, we should say something
[2:21:37] about that. Um because I don't I don't
[2:21:41] understand why the person with the most
[2:21:43] financial expertise that was asking all
[2:21:44] the questions that ended up being
[2:21:46] completely validated was removed.
[2:21:49] I don't want to get into that, Matt. We
[2:21:51] already discussed that when I removed
[2:21:54] you, and I don't want to get into that,
[2:21:56] but I will say very briefly that you
[2:21:59] were not removed because of the
[2:22:00] questions you were being you were
[2:22:02] asking. You were removed because I
[2:22:05] received complaints from four other
[2:22:07] board members about your behavior,
[2:22:09] >> which are which were never publicly
[2:22:11] disclosed. And we had, I think, five
[2:22:14] different board members uh submit public
[2:22:16] letters of support. The mayor of
[2:22:18] Belvadier, the mayor of Larks, who ended
[2:22:21] up all the things that I talked about
[2:22:24] were actually in this grand jury report.
[2:22:26] Everything that I was working on that
[2:22:28] you that you chose to hide the
[2:22:32] corruption by removing me and silencing
[2:22:34] me needs to be addressed in this R six
[2:22:37] because why would you replace the person
[2:22:39] who was actually advocating
[2:22:41] >> then
[2:22:41] >> for the reforms?
[2:22:42] >> Ben, could we have a point of order
[2:22:45] here, please?
[2:22:45] >> Well, it's not a point of order. It's
[2:22:46] the it's the agenda item. Yeah. We don't
[2:22:48] address individual council members in a
[2:22:50] finding to a grand jury.
[2:22:52] >> Yeah. I understand you have a dispute
[2:22:54] with the mayor about what led up to
[2:22:56] your, you know, being uh taken off the
[2:23:00] board, but we're focusing right now on
[2:23:02] the language of R six and whether or not
[2:23:04] we partially disagree or whether the
[2:23:06] council thinks we should partially agree
[2:23:08] or agree and the reasons for it. Um, but
[2:23:12] again, it's not about you as a person
[2:23:14] being taken off the board.
[2:23:15] >> Yes, I hear you. So, I I think we should
[2:23:17] prioritize people with financial and
[2:23:20] energy expertise on this board. And in
[2:23:22] fact that is the entire findings is the
[2:23:24] board was derelictked in its duty
[2:23:27] because it was inept to handle these
[2:23:30] very complicated questions about the
[2:23:32] energy market. So why would we not
[2:23:33] prioritize people who have expertise in
[2:23:36] energy and financial matters that makes
[2:23:38] no sense to me.
[2:23:39] >> It's my understanding that in order to
[2:23:41] be um the liaison to the MCE board you
[2:23:44] have to be an elected official.
[2:23:47] So I think that the finding recognizes
[2:23:51] that limitation. I know that MCE is
[2:23:54] going through a very large governance
[2:23:56] workshop right now and there'll probably
[2:23:58] be some consolidation of board pieces.
[2:24:01] Maybe they'll change the rule that you
[2:24:03] have to be an elected official to get
[2:24:05] people who are more qualified to serve
[2:24:07] on the board. I don't know. But right
[2:24:09] now, I think, you know, there's there's
[2:24:12] a big limitation in the way the bylaws
[2:24:15] work for that organization.
[2:24:18] So, I think that's why we say it's a
[2:24:20] worthwhile goal, but we're our hands are
[2:24:23] tied. It has to be a council member.
[2:24:25] >> But why wouldn't we prioritize
[2:24:27] energy and financial expertise? That's
[2:24:29] all the the language says. Prioritize.
[2:24:32] It doesn't say you have to.
[2:24:33] >> So, that would be my point. It says we
[2:24:35] partially disagree. All this says is is
[2:24:39] that we that people should reassess
[2:24:41] appointments to prioritize those with
[2:24:43] financial and energy expertise. That
[2:24:45] seems fine. Yeah. So, I don't know why
[2:24:47] we say partially disagree. I would say I
[2:24:48] agree because it's only it's only
[2:24:50] prioritize and we may well have other
[2:24:53] reasons why our most financially expert
[2:24:55] person shouldn't be on the board. Maybe
[2:24:58] that, you know, maybe there's continuity
[2:24:59] or something. But I I think R six should
[2:25:01] be agree and not partially disagree.
[2:25:05] >> It doesn't change anything for us. It's
[2:25:06] just it's just a recommendation to
[2:25:08] prioritize expertise and we can try. It
[2:25:12] doesn't say you have to. So that's
[2:25:13] because it says should reassess and
[2:25:15] prioritize. So it's very um I think it
[2:25:19] gives each council the the ability to
[2:25:21] choose whoever they want but just with a
[2:25:23] with an eye to keeping with an eye to
[2:25:26] focusing on uh expert, you know,
[2:25:30] expertise. So I would say my opinion is
[2:25:32] this should be an agree just a straight
[2:25:34] out agree
[2:25:37] » clarify what you're saying. I mean the
[2:25:39] other part of this is by December 31st
[2:25:41] 2026 you'll do all these steps. So I
[2:25:44] think that's something
[2:25:45] >> but it says should so we don't have to
[2:25:48] >> if you're if you're agreeing you're
[2:25:49] saying by this date you will reassess
[2:25:52] you should reassess your appointments to
[2:25:54] the chosen boards.
[2:25:55] >> I thought but it will be because we have
[2:25:57] a new council in November. So, of
[2:26:00] course, it'll be reassessed.
[2:26:01] >> I thought since it didn't say shall, we
[2:26:03] didn't have to. I thought should was
[2:26:04] sort of gave you some wiggle room. Um, I
[2:26:08] mean, that's what the lawyers always say
[2:26:10] like shall shall is required and should
[2:26:13] is is room. So, I
[2:26:15] >> I mean, if we do disagree, I think it
[2:26:18] should be partially disagree. Uh, we
[2:26:21] will focus on our appointments in the
[2:26:22] future, but you know, so that we can get
[2:26:24] away from that December 31, 2026 issue.
[2:26:28] But otherwise, I think it's an agree.
[2:26:29] So, do you think we can't say agree
[2:26:31] because it says we should
[2:26:34] >> partially disagree. You can say agree or
[2:26:36] you can say partially uh you'd have to
[2:26:38] say partially disagree. There's no
[2:26:40] partially agree in the penal code.
[2:26:42] >> Okay.
[2:26:42] >> So, I think if you wanted to clarify
[2:26:44] that you're going to do it
[2:26:46] >> at our
[2:26:48] time frame, then you could say partially
[2:26:49] disagree. The criteria is something
[2:26:52] we're interested in abiding by. the
[2:26:54] timeline is going to be based on our
[2:26:56] when we do our appointment process.
[2:26:58] >> So we could say so partially disagree
[2:27:00] and and the only comment is we we
[2:27:05] don't we're not sure that we will be
[2:27:07] getting to this by December 31 or just
[2:27:09] >> we're going to have a new mayor and a
[2:27:11] new council. I know but so it will
[2:27:13] happen as a normal course of our
[2:27:14] process.
[2:27:15] >> I don't think we should be tied to a
[2:27:16] timeline. I think
[2:27:17] >> you're not tied. It says it literally
[2:27:19] says should should reassess by December
[2:27:22] 31st. you should. It doesn't mean you
[2:27:24] have to.
[2:27:25] >> I think Ben is saying if we say agree,
[2:27:26] it looks like we're agreeing to do this.
[2:27:28] So why not say partially disagree? We
[2:27:31] agree with uh reassessing, but we don't
[2:27:34] agree with the timeline
[2:27:35] >> or we agree with the prioritization. I
[2:27:37] mean, you could say we agree with the
[2:27:39] prioritization.
[2:27:41] >> Sure. I mean, that's fine, too. We agree
[2:27:43] with the prioritization, but we don't
[2:27:45] agree with the timeline. And that's the extent of it. And that way,
[2:27:49] we do agree overall with this with the
[2:27:51] statement. we just don't want to be
[2:27:53] committed to doing this, you know, come December.
[2:27:58] I don't know. That that would be what I
[2:27:59] would that would be my response.
[2:28:04] » What do you all think? I
[2:28:06] >> I'm actually fine with the wording as it
[2:28:07] is. So, you
[2:28:09] >> I'm fine. I'm fine with the wording as
[2:28:10] it is here.
[2:28:14] » Okay, back to you, Bill again.
[2:28:17] I'm okay with the wording as it is, but
[2:28:19] I'm also okay with Elizabeth's
[2:28:21] suggestion.
[2:28:22] >> Well, you got to pick one.
[2:28:23] >> You gotta pick Bill.
[2:28:25] >> Okay. As as it is, but we all know what
[2:28:27] we're really talking about is when the
[2:28:30] new mayor and the council get around to
[2:28:32] making the appointments for the next
[2:28:34] term.
[2:28:36] >> I'm sorry.
[2:28:38] >> Was that clear enough? Probably not.
[2:28:39] >> We didn't understand you.
[2:28:40] >> I don't think What is What was your
[2:28:44] >> uh recommendation? Let's just go with
[2:28:46] what what's in there.
[2:28:48] >> Let's just go with what's in there. I
[2:28:49] don't think we're gonna have a
[2:28:50] consensus, Elizabeth, for your
[2:28:52] >> for your thing.
[2:28:53] >> Well, you but not without you. We need
[2:28:56] you, Bill. Um
[2:28:58] >> Okay. Well, then you
[2:29:01] >> Okay, let's say we have Do we have three
[2:29:03] with what Elizabeth suggested?
[2:29:05] >> Well, I agree with Elizabeth. I will
[2:29:07] agree.
[2:29:07] >> Okay, then we have three. Okay, that's
[2:29:09] good.
[2:29:09] >> You agree with us? Okay, great. Thank
[2:29:10] you, Bill. So, we're changing the
[2:29:12] language to partially disagree
[2:29:15] >> with the time. Like, we don't know.
[2:29:17] >> I was just say partially disagree with
[2:29:18] the timeline. Leave it at that.
[2:29:19] >> Yeah.
[2:29:20] >> Partially with the timeline, but
[2:29:22] >> leave it at that. Yeah.
[2:29:23] >> With
[2:29:25] Yeah. I have one other comment that you
[2:29:27] know I do think financial experience is
[2:29:30] important, but it also mentions legal.
[2:29:32] So, Matt, between the two of us, I have
[2:29:34] the legal, you have the financial, but I
[2:29:36] also have financial, but not to the
[2:29:38] depth you do.
[2:29:39] >> Team Bill, I know that.
[2:29:40] >> Yeah. Okay.
[2:29:41] >> So, are we keeping in this is a
[2:29:43] worthwhile goal when making a getting
[2:29:46] rid of all of it?
[2:29:47] >> All the language. So, our only new
[2:29:48] language is partially disagree. We agree
[2:29:50] with uh uh with the recommendation but
[2:29:54] disagree with the timeline.
[2:29:55] >> Yes.
[2:29:56] >> Do you agree with that bill?
[2:29:58] >> Yes, that's fine.
[2:29:59] >> Okay,
[2:30:01] great.
[2:30:02] >> So, is that is
[2:30:03] >> So, we need a we need a motion then.
[2:30:05] Well, so I move that for R six we um we
[2:30:10] change the wording that says partially
[2:30:12] disagree and then the text we delete
[2:30:14] what's there and we say we agree with
[2:30:16] the recommendation but disagree with the
[2:30:18] timeline
[2:30:20] >> second
[2:30:23] >> I guess I can't
[2:30:26] >> so it's like we yeah we agree with the
[2:30:28] recommendations with the amendment to R
[2:30:31] six as stated
[2:30:33] >> why don't you second it I I I I can
[2:30:36] second. I was Do you want us to That
[2:30:38] could be the motion. I'm happy to make
[2:30:40] that motion.
[2:30:41] >> I I
[2:30:42] >> We don't need to make it again.
[2:30:43] Elizabeth made it and Matt, you seconded
[2:30:45] it.
[2:30:46] >> Yes.
[2:30:46] >> So, just call the role, please.
[2:30:48] >> Motion by Mayor Prom Robbins, second by
[2:30:52] Council Member Salter.
[2:30:54] >> Uh Mayor McMillan,
[2:30:55] >> yes.
[2:30:55] >> Mayor Prom Robbins,
[2:30:57] >> yes.
[2:30:58] >> Council member Kercher,
[2:31:00] >> yes.
[2:31:00] >> Council member Dalling,
[2:31:01] >> yes.
[2:31:02] >> Council member Salter,
[2:31:03] >> yes. Motion passes unanimously.
[2:31:05] >> Did I? No, I meant no. I'm sorry.
[2:31:08] >> Okay, Terry changes her vote.
[2:31:09] >> Motion passes 4-1.
[2:31:12] >> Okay.
[2:31:14] Number 15, town council to receive
[2:31:18] a report on options for town council pay
[2:31:20] and the accompanying survey of council
[2:31:23] member compensation in Marin County and
[2:31:25] provide direction to staff on whether to
[2:31:27] establish monthly compensation for
[2:31:30] members of the town council and if so
[2:31:32] the amount up to the applicable
[2:31:34] statutory maximum. Town manager Johnson.
[2:31:38] Oh,
[2:31:40] >> Zack,
[2:31:40] >> I'll be taking this one as well.
[2:31:43] Hello again, Mayor McMillan and council
[2:31:44] members. Thank you for the opportunity
[2:31:46] to present to you this evening on the
[2:31:47] subject of council member compensation.
[2:31:50] Agenda item number 15 ask the council to
[2:31:52] discuss and consider establishing
[2:31:54] compensation for members of the town
[2:31:56] council pursuant to government code
[2:31:57] section 36516.
[2:32:00] Ross council members currently serve as
[2:32:02] volunteers and receive no pay or
[2:32:04] benefits. This item would establish
[2:32:07] compensation for the first time. It is
[2:32:09] not a raise because there is no existing
[2:32:10] salary.
[2:32:12] As a general law town, Ross is subject
[2:32:14] to the state tiered salary schedule in
[2:32:16] section 36516.
[2:32:19] For our tier, towns with populations of
[2:32:21] up to three 35,000 residents, the
[2:32:24] maximum compensation for council members
[2:32:26] is $950 per month. That figure comes
[2:32:30] from Senate Bill 329.
[2:32:32] Setting compensation is done by
[2:32:34] ordinance and is entirely within the
[2:32:35] council's authority. No voter approval
[2:32:37] is required as long as the amount stays
[2:32:39] below the $950 cap, but council may
[2:32:43] choose to bring this to the voters in a
[2:32:44] future election. State law also controls
[2:32:47] the timing. Compensation cannot apply to
[2:32:49] a council member during their current
[2:32:50] term. It takes effect for each member
[2:32:53] only as they begin a new term, so it
[2:32:55] would phase in as seats turn over
[2:32:57] beginning with the November 2026
[2:32:59] election should council choose to start
[2:33:01] the program this year. For context,
[2:33:03] staff surveyed council pay across cities
[2:33:05] and towns of Min County. The smaller
[2:33:07] towns, including Ross, Belvadier, and
[2:33:09] Tibberon, have historically not
[2:33:11] compensated council members. Several
[2:33:13] jurisdictions have recently increase
[2:33:15] council pay with Mil Valley going to
[2:33:16] $650 a month. Other cities with a
[2:33:19] similar size population to the town of
[2:33:21] Ross have increased council compensation
[2:33:23] to $950 a month. And Neato and
[2:33:26] Centerfell have higher compensation
[2:33:28] based on their population sizes
[2:33:30] exceeding $1,500 a month. The town of
[2:33:32] Fairfax has set their council pay at
[2:33:34] $300 per month for several years.
[2:33:36] Regarding the financial impact, the town
[2:33:39] has not included council pay in the
[2:33:40] fiscical year 2627 budget. Because
[2:33:43] compensation is treated as wages, the
[2:33:45] town also pays employer payroll cost of
[2:33:47] roughly 10% on top of the base amount.
[2:33:50] Fully loaded, the five member council
[2:33:52] would cost about $33,000 per year at 500
[2:33:55] a month, about $50,000 per year at $750
[2:33:59] per month, and about $63,000 per year at
[2:34:02] the 95 or $950 maximum per month. First
[2:34:07] year cost would be lower, as I mentioned
[2:34:08] before, because the pay phases in as
[2:34:10] terms turn over. Staff recommends that
[2:34:13] council receive this report, discuss the
[2:34:15] topic, and provide direction on whether
[2:34:17] to establish compensation, and if so, at
[2:34:20] up to what amounts up to the statutory
[2:34:23] maximum. If the council wishes to move
[2:34:25] forward, staff will return with the
[2:34:27] enabling ordinance and the necessary
[2:34:29] budget amendment. I'm happy to answer
[2:34:31] any questions.
[2:34:33] >> Questions?
[2:34:36] >> Um, any public comment?
[2:34:39] I'm going to read the public comment
[2:34:41] that Charlie Goodman made at the July
[2:34:45] 9th meeting um from the meeting minutes
[2:34:49] on it's on page 29. Charlie Goodman
[2:34:52] expressed concern about the possibility
[2:34:54] of compensating council members. He
[2:34:56] shared that during his 12 years on the
[2:34:58] council, he personally incurred expenses
[2:35:00] while serving because he viewed public
[2:35:02] service as a privilege and a way to give
[2:35:04] back to the community. Mr. Mr. Goodman
[2:35:06] emphasized that council members
[2:35:08] volunteer significant personal time and
[2:35:10] effort and are not motivated by
[2:35:12] financial compensation. He acknowledged
[2:35:15] that some other communities provide
[2:35:16] stipens, but stated that he believes
[2:35:18] Ross' tradition of volunteer service is
[2:35:21] unique and that compensation would
[2:35:23] diminish the nature of the role.
[2:35:26] Any other public comment?
[2:35:28] >> No one online, Mayor.
[2:35:30] >> Okay. So, we'll bring it back for a
[2:35:31] discussion. This is yours, Matt. So,
[2:35:35] it's interesting because I really think
[2:35:37] that, you know, the people who serve on
[2:35:39] the council tend to be a lot older,
[2:35:41] retired, and maybe financially secure.
[2:35:44] And I think that we do a disservice to
[2:35:48] the people who may want to run for
[2:35:50] office. Maybe they have children. Maybe
[2:35:51] they're lower income. And we offer no
[2:35:54] compensation for the amount of time and
[2:35:56] effort it takes to to to to work on this
[2:35:58] council. And while Charlie Goodman may
[2:36:01] be very financially secure and feel and
[2:36:04] that he's entitled to his opinion, I
[2:36:06] think that people should serve and run
[2:36:08] for public office and not be worried
[2:36:10] that they need to pay for someone to
[2:36:12] watch their kids at night when they're
[2:36:14] coming to to come to council. At RPOA,
[2:36:17] we always struggled to get the auxiliary
[2:36:19] members to come to the meetings because
[2:36:21] they were at night and they could not
[2:36:22] pay for or find people to watch their
[2:36:25] kids. you need to think a little bit
[2:36:27] beyond just being retired and wealthy in
[2:36:29] Ross. It needs to be um we need to
[2:36:32] promote all people of all income levels
[2:36:36] to wanting to serve and run for office.
[2:36:38] And I think that many of the problems
[2:36:40] that come out of the council are myopic
[2:36:42] because there's only one view expressed
[2:36:44] on this council and it tends to be from
[2:36:46] a certain demographic and we don't
[2:36:48] represent the demographics of Ross and I
[2:36:51] think that to encourage that this is one
[2:36:53] step we can take to do that.
[2:36:58] Um, I agree with Charlie. I I think it's
[2:37:01] a privilege to serve and I think that
[2:37:03] compensation, it's not a lot of money to
[2:37:06] begin with. Um, but I think it somehow
[2:37:08] cheapens the role. Um, so I would
[2:37:11] absolutely not want to u start a
[2:37:13] compensation for council members. Your
[2:37:16] point about um expenses, I think that's
[2:37:19] well taken. So, for example, uh I think
[2:37:22] we already have provisions for um
[2:37:25] reimbursement if there's if there's
[2:37:27] travel or if you have to take someone
[2:37:29] out for a meal. Not we don't take people
[2:37:31] out for a meal as much, but if ever, but you know, maybe we should expand our
[2:37:36] reimbursement policy to include a
[2:37:38] babysitter at night. I mean, I hadn't
[2:37:40] really thought of it until you mentioned
[2:37:41] that. But but you know that might be a
[2:37:44] way of making it easier for pe for
[2:37:47] families with younger for people with
[2:37:48] young children to serve. But I wouldn't
[2:37:52] I I I would not want us to um provide
[2:37:56] compensation for council members.
[2:38:00] Well, I agree with Elizabeth and I agree
[2:38:02] with Charlie. I think uh volunteering to
[2:38:06] be on the town council in Ross is a
[2:38:09] privilege and an honor and volunteering
[2:38:11] is very noble to do that and uh
[2:38:17] being reimbursed for the time. No.
[2:38:21] >> Well, thoughts
[2:38:24] question for Matt. Matt, how much do you
[2:38:26] think the pay would have to be to for
[2:38:28] example uh entice more younger people to
[2:38:31] be on the council? I always my view
[2:38:33] always was that that people were busy
[2:38:37] not just with raising children but a lot
[2:38:39] of other things when they were younger
[2:38:40] later uh when when people are partially
[2:38:43] retired or retired they have more time
[2:38:46] but if we get back to the financial
[2:38:47] thing what do you have some figure in
[2:38:50] mind?
[2:38:50] >> Oh I think a couple hundred dollars a
[2:38:52] month is would be plenty. I think it's
[2:38:55] also I mean from my experience you know
[2:38:58] when you go out with a constituent and
[2:39:00] you don't want to let them pay for your
[2:39:02] coffee or whatever it is it's it just
[2:39:04] gives you a little extra that you don't
[2:39:06] feel uncomfortable paying for the
[2:39:08] constituent. Um but I I think it would
[2:39:11] help encourage people from different
[2:39:13] demographics to know that there's some
[2:39:15] level of compensation that they can rely
[2:39:18] on. um because it takes it takes a lot
[2:39:20] of time to do this job and and you you need to find coverage and I
[2:39:25] think of single families, single
[2:39:26] parents, I mean we can open this up.
[2:39:29] It's it's not that it isn't a privilege
[2:39:31] and an honor to serve. It's just
[2:39:34] recognizing that we have lots of
[2:39:35] different demographics and diversity and
[2:39:38] the needs are different for people. So I think a couple hundred a month was not
[2:39:42] going to break the bank of the town. And
[2:39:44] by the way, any council member can
[2:39:46] choose to opt out. You can say I don't
[2:39:48] want the compensation. I think our
[2:39:50] president does that and he doesn't take
[2:39:52] compensation. So if you want to serve
[2:39:55] and you don't say I don't want the
[2:39:56] compensation, don't take it. But for the
[2:39:58] people who need it or want it, it's
[2:40:00] there for them. And it it's a little bit
[2:40:02] extra to help them cover their expenses
[2:40:04] because there's a lot of needs. Look at the time right now. It's 8:41.
[2:40:09] And if you're a single parent, I don't
[2:40:11] want you not to run for Rosstown Council
[2:40:14] because you're like, I'm just going to
[2:40:15] have to spend a lot of money on child
[2:40:17] care or other issues. I just I really
[2:40:19] see this as an issue that is a
[2:40:21] non-issue. If you don't want the
[2:40:23] compensation, don't take it. And for the
[2:40:25] people who need it or want it, they it
[2:40:27] should be available to them.
[2:40:31] » Well, I mean, it's not just the council
[2:40:33] meetings, you know, it's the other
[2:40:35] meetings we all go to and the other
[2:40:36] things we do. So, um,
[2:40:40] I'd certainly like to see more younger
[2:40:42] people on the council. I think that
[2:40:44] would be very significant, but I I'm not
[2:40:46] sure this would would make that much of
[2:40:49] a difference, frankly, man.
[2:40:51] >> But I would I would favor something like
[2:40:53] compensation for child care and whatnot.
[2:40:56] >> Yeah,
[2:40:56] >> I I think that would be great. I just
[2:40:58] don't know whe that's something we can
[2:40:59] do. I suppose Ben, could we do it?
[2:41:05] >> Ben, can we reimbursement? Can we
[2:41:07] reimburse people for child care?
[2:41:09] >> I'd have to look at that first under
[2:41:10] existing reimbursement policy and then
[2:41:12] under state law there's very strict
[2:41:14] guidelines about what can and can't be
[2:41:15] reimbured under those guidelines.
[2:41:18] >> Yeah, I I think um my view is I guess
[2:41:24] I'm more of a traditionalist along with
[2:41:26] Terry and Elizabeth and Charlie. And I
[2:41:29] also feel like the ADR people work just
[2:41:32] as hard as we do. And there's other
[2:41:33] committees that also work just as hard
[2:41:36] as we do. So it would kind of become a
[2:41:39] slippery slope of, you know,
[2:41:41] compensating. And you look at the other
[2:41:43] demographics who do not compensate, and
[2:41:46] they're very similar to our demographic.
[2:41:49] Um, and I also don't think that $200 or
[2:41:53] $300 is going to make any kind of
[2:41:55] material difference in whether someone
[2:41:57] is going to serve on the council or not.
[2:41:59] So I'm I'm keeping with the status quo.
[2:42:03] That's my opinion.
[2:42:08] So it sounds like we have at we have
[2:42:12] four who want to continue maybe explore
[2:42:15] reimbursement and Matt would like
[2:42:17] compensation. That that seems right. So
[2:42:21] maybe Ben, you could look into
[2:42:24] reimbursement if that's something that's
[2:42:26] feasible
[2:42:28] for child care.
[2:42:31] >> Mayor, mayor.
[2:42:32] >> Yeah. May I I just would like to just
[2:42:34] add one part about the reimbursement is
[2:42:37] going to be difficult for staff to um
[2:42:40] administer because you get into how much
[2:42:43] is I mean it's not for staff to decide
[2:42:47] how much you should pay your caregiver
[2:42:50] and to get receipts and most people that
[2:42:52] I know of that hire babysitters aren't getting receipts themselves
[2:42:58] and there's tax implications. It's
[2:43:00] really it's it's very messy. I mean, I
[2:43:02] think it would be you could do something
[2:43:04] like
[2:43:06] where you you you have the compensation,
[2:43:09] try to um match it to let's say you have
[2:43:13] one meeting a month um and how many you
[2:43:16] know the average amount of hours per the
[2:43:18] meeting and then try to get an idea of
[2:43:20] how much a a caregiver would cost and
[2:43:23] then and use that um because we also
[2:43:26] have to do payroll taxes and I mean
[2:43:28] there There's just a lot that goes into
[2:43:31] this and I I really don't want staff to
[2:43:33] have to be in the position of um
[2:43:37] approving reimbursement requests for
[2:43:40] caregivers. I I see that as being really
[2:43:42] problematic. It already is problematic
[2:43:45] with reimbursement for travel and and I'm glad that the council very
[2:43:50] rarely ever asks for that because it it
[2:43:53] puts staff in a in a difficult position.
[2:43:56] Thank you for letting me give you my two
[2:43:58] cents. So,
[2:43:59] >> so I I'm convinced by Christa's
[2:44:02] comments. Um, I also think I mean it
[2:44:05] isn't going to come up that often if you
[2:44:07] have young children. I mean, it's great
[2:44:09] to have different viewpoints, but
[2:44:10] typically people with young children
[2:44:12] don't run for the council because you're
[2:44:13] so busy. So, I don't know that not
[2:44:15] reimbursing for child care limits the
[2:44:18] pool of candidates. So, I I'm okay to
[2:44:20] just forget pass on the reimbursement.
[2:44:24] But I thought it was I thought it was a
[2:44:25] good idea, Matt. But I hearing how it
[2:44:27] would be implemented, I think that we
[2:44:30] should pass on that.
[2:44:32] >> Okay. It's always good to hear back from
[2:44:35] what our ideas are and how they reflect
[2:44:37] on staff work. So, thank you for your
[2:44:40] comments. So,
[2:44:44] okay.
[2:44:45] So we're ready to move on to number 16,
[2:44:50] which is discussion regarding
[2:44:51] implementation of the executed
[2:44:53] professional services agreement with
[2:44:55] Gensler for facilities master plan
[2:44:57] amendment services.
[2:45:04] » Good evening again, Mayor McMillan,
[2:45:06] Mayor Prom Robbins, honorable council
[2:45:08] members. Uh the purpose of tonight's
[2:45:11] agenda item is to discuss how the
[2:45:13] recently approved professional services
[2:45:15] agreement with Ginsor is and will be
[2:45:17] implemented. Uh specifically regarding
[2:45:20] opportunities for continued
[2:45:22] participation by both the citizens
[2:45:25] advisory committee as well as other
[2:45:27] community stakeholders during
[2:45:28] preparation of this facilities master
[2:45:30] plan amendment. Uh, as council's very
[2:45:33] aware, on August 4th, you approved an
[2:45:35] agreement that included a scope of work
[2:45:37] with Gendler to prepare an amendment to
[2:45:39] the town's uh, facilities master plan.
[2:45:43] And that uh, scope included a very
[2:45:46] accelerated 12week schedule uh, with the
[2:45:49] objective of completing the amendment
[2:45:51] uh, this coming October.
[2:45:54] So, why is this item before you? Um,
[2:45:57] following approval of the agreement, I
[2:45:59] think it was uh, Mayor Prom Robbins
[2:46:01] requested council discuss whether
[2:46:04] members of the CAC should participate in
[2:46:06] the regular project management meetings
[2:46:09] between uh, town staff and Gendler. Uh,
[2:46:13] want to note that staff, you know,
[2:46:15] really carefully considered and
[2:46:17] evaluated that request and also
[2:46:19] considered the correspondence that was
[2:46:20] submitted uh, by a CAC member that's
[2:46:23] here this evening, Mr. Weiny.
[2:46:25] uh the staff report that that uh was
[2:46:29] included with this item attempts really
[2:46:31] to accomplish two objectives. It's it's
[2:46:34] one to maintain and support
[2:46:36] opportunities for meaningful stakeholder
[2:46:38] participation in the process but also to
[2:46:41] preserve an efficient project management
[2:46:44] structure that allows Gendler to
[2:46:46] complete the work on schedule. Uh we've
[2:46:49] already found this week our schedules
[2:46:51] are all very tight. uh it's it's even
[2:46:54] difficult to schedule meetings when
[2:46:56] we're all available, but we're working
[2:46:58] very diligently uh within that timeline
[2:47:01] to get all of the work completed and get
[2:47:04] those meetings scheduled. Um, one of the
[2:47:07] kind of the key uh distinctions that I
[2:47:10] think council should make is the
[2:47:11] difference between uh project management
[2:47:14] meetings and and stakeholder engagement
[2:47:16] meetings. Uh our kickoff meeting on
[2:47:19] Monday uh was to discuss you know
[2:47:22] communication protocols to discuss
[2:47:26] scheduling to discuss how we're going to
[2:47:29] get our subconsultants under contract
[2:47:31] and the work completed how we're going
[2:47:33] to get the site uh how the team is going
[2:47:35] to come out and conduct their their
[2:47:38] sitewalk. So it's a lot of detailed
[2:47:40] project management work and I don't
[2:47:42] think that that's the objective that uh the the CAC is seeking. and I think
[2:47:46] they're looking at how can they be
[2:47:48] involved in some of the other elements
[2:47:50] of the project and give council uh good
[2:47:53] and positive feedback on some of the
[2:47:55] work that's being done. Um
[2:47:58] so you really want to highlight that you
[2:48:03] the town manager has already expanded
[2:48:05] opportunities for council input by
[2:48:08] scheduling four four spe four special
[2:48:11] meetings. I think those have all been
[2:48:13] placed on your calendar. uh those will
[2:48:17] provide for you know additional
[2:48:19] opportunities for staff to bring forward
[2:48:22] you know critical policy decisions for
[2:48:23] your consideration. Um and and as part
[2:48:26] of that that's an an effort for us to uh
[2:48:30] you know engage with the community and
[2:48:32] discuss with the community or at least
[2:48:34] allow enable the community to to hear
[2:48:36] what some of those critical policy
[2:48:38] issues are. So, uh, what what staff
[2:48:42] recommends if if council wishes to
[2:48:44] expand the CAC participation is to
[2:48:48] establish, uh, three mile stain
[2:48:51] milestonebased
[2:48:52] meetings with the CAC during preparation
[2:48:55] of the facility master plan. Uh these
[2:48:57] meetings would allow Ginsler to provide,
[2:49:00] you know, key project updates, present
[2:49:02] work in progress, receive technical
[2:49:04] observations and comments and and
[2:49:07] ultimately help identify matters that
[2:49:09] could come back to council uh for for
[2:49:11] policy direction. Again, noting council
[2:49:13] council's the policy direction here. Uh
[2:49:16] direction to Gendler regarding scope,
[2:49:18] schedule delivers, deliverables, and
[2:49:20] advancement of alternatives would
[2:49:22] otherwise continue to be uh directed
[2:49:24] through the town manager. um uh under
[2:49:27] the professional services agreement of
[2:49:29] course ultimately through policy
[2:49:31] direction uh provided by the council. Uh
[2:49:34] one of the things that your agenda
[2:49:36] report discusses is opportunities for
[2:49:38] broader community outreach. Uh we want
[2:49:41] to note that the citizens advisory
[2:49:44] committee is really not the only
[2:49:45] stakeholder here. Um you know
[2:49:47] particularly with regards to the civic
[2:49:49] center of course you have your internal
[2:49:51] stakeholders. you think of your police
[2:49:53] department, think of your paramedics, uh
[2:49:55] and we're also engaging with uh you
[2:49:58] know, had a had a lengthy conversation
[2:50:00] with the with the fire chief today. Um
[2:50:03] and and those are critical stakeholders
[2:50:05] that need to be engaged in this process.
[2:50:07] So, there's opportunities to engage with
[2:50:09] property owners, you know, certainly
[2:50:11] your neighbors, the downtown, the Marine
[2:50:13] Art and Garden Center, um, and and and
[2:50:16] other stakeholders that you might see as
[2:50:18] appropriate while again continuing to
[2:50:20] provide and receive public input through notice council meetings. So, as
[2:50:26] part of the professional services
[2:50:27] agreement, uh, Gender's basic services
[2:50:29] already include a a series of uh,
[2:50:32] project milestone and meetings. Uh
[2:50:35] again, you know, looking at that 12-week
[2:50:37] schedule, we've got about eight meetings
[2:50:39] included uh in in their in their scope
[2:50:42] of work and it's clearly identified. Of
[2:50:45] those, two are specifically uh scheduled
[2:50:48] to bring those to to council uh which is
[2:50:52] the uh administrative draft facilities
[2:50:55] master plan and ultimately the final
[2:50:57] master plan. So I think there's
[2:50:59] opportunities to um with their proposal
[2:51:02] is have a total of six additional
[2:51:04] meetings. Three of which would be
[2:51:06] scheduled uh virtually with the citizens
[2:51:09] advisory committee again to give them uh feedback and overview of uh current
[2:51:16] uh uh work to date. uh along with uh
[2:51:19] three additional council meetings that
[2:51:23] uh would provide uh opportunities to
[2:51:25] bring back some of the key policy issues
[2:51:28] to council on some of those meeting
[2:51:29] dates that council has already
[2:51:31] scheduled. The estimated cost for those
[2:51:33] six meetings is uh $17,400.
[2:51:37] Um and Gendler has advised that these
[2:51:40] meetings can be incorporated within the
[2:51:42] current project schedule. So that that
[2:51:44] was that was kind of good news to hear
[2:51:45] that. uh you know of course want to
[2:51:48] caveat that that if as part of this
[2:51:50] process and often what can happen is uh
[2:51:55] the council can provide pro policy
[2:51:57] direction that may uh require
[2:52:00] substantial or significant revisions and
[2:52:02] that could change the timeline uh that's
[2:52:04] not anticipated or expected necessarily
[2:52:06] just you know that's a cautionary note
[2:52:10] um also I think what's important is to
[2:52:12] speak a little bit regarding you know
[2:52:14] governance
[2:52:16] uh you know the town council clearly
[2:52:18] established this policy. It's the town
[2:52:21] manager's responsibility uh to continue
[2:52:24] to administer the professional services
[2:52:26] agreement. Um ultimately Gendzer is
[2:52:28] going to provide those those those
[2:52:30] independent professional uh advice and
[2:52:33] they're going to send us invoices which
[2:52:34] we're going to review. Um but the the
[2:52:37] CAC's role as well as stakeholders would
[2:52:40] be to provide uh valuable advisory input
[2:52:43] to the council. Uh this the structure
[2:52:46] that was identified in your agenda
[2:52:47] report preserves accountability,
[2:52:51] preserves transparency uh at a at a
[2:52:53] relatively minor cost addition uh while
[2:52:57] also providing the council to give you
[2:52:59] know additional feedback that was you
[2:53:02] know not built into the accelerated
[2:53:05] project schedule uh uh that that came
[2:53:08] before council.
[2:53:09] So, so staff is really requesting
[2:53:11] council direction uh again tonight
[2:53:14] whether the council wishes to, you know,
[2:53:16] establish those proposed, you know,
[2:53:18] three additional meetings with the
[2:53:19] citizens advisory committee. Uh whether
[2:53:22] you would like us to uh build in some
[2:53:25] additional uh community outreach and,
[2:53:27] you know, I want to kind of hearken back
[2:53:28] to the presentation that you had earlier
[2:53:30] tonight uh from from Joy at Team Civics uh in regards to the value of
[2:53:37] that community engagement. So I think
[2:53:38] it, you know, she kind of sheds light on
[2:53:40] some of the value that that can have.
[2:53:42] Um, and with that, you know, I just want
[2:53:44] to address a couple questions in advance
[2:53:47] that council may have. You see, you
[2:53:49] might ask, well, why can't CAC members
[2:53:52] simply participate in in every weekly
[2:53:54] meeting? Um, you know, I think our
[2:53:56] answer is is that th those meetings
[2:53:58] really function as as project management
[2:54:00] meetings. You know, we're we're busy.
[2:54:03] Uh, we have an hour. It's it's it's get
[2:54:05] the work done. It's not not to present
[2:54:07] information uh and and and you know ask
[2:54:11] feedback. It's we're we're working uh to implement this critical project in a
[2:54:16] short timeline. Uh the proposed
[2:54:19] stakeholder meetings however would be
[2:54:20] intended to provide meaningful
[2:54:22] opportunities for the CAC to really ask
[2:54:25] questions and and give Ginsler an
[2:54:26] opportunity to present some of the
[2:54:28] material that's been uh prepared to
[2:54:31] date. Um you might say, well, why only
[2:54:34] three CAC meetings? Well, we're on a
[2:54:36] 12-week schedule. We're one week into
[2:54:37] that. We we uh you know are again
[2:54:41] working diligently to uh you know to to
[2:54:44] complete the uh amendment in time and
[2:54:46] really to kind of target what are the
[2:54:48] key deliverables and where is that
[2:54:50] feedback going to be mo of most value.
[2:54:52] Uh some potential items might include
[2:54:55] presentation of the blocking and stack
[2:54:57] stacking program to kind of see how that
[2:55:00] relates and does that fit and validate
[2:55:02] the CAC concept. uh presentation of you
[2:55:05] know the massing the site analysis and
[2:55:07] technical narratives and and maybe
[2:55:09] presentation of cost estimates. So
[2:55:11] that's just my take on what might three
[2:55:12] meetings might look like. There's a lot
[2:55:14] in that. Uh and those of course are are
[2:55:17] similarly are those items are the things
[2:55:20] that could be part of those three
[2:55:21] meetings that come come back to to
[2:55:23] council. Um again you may ask well why include the neighbors? Uh why
[2:55:28] include the marine and art and garden
[2:55:30] center? Well, um you know, there there's
[2:55:33] a whole number of issues uh that this
[2:55:35] the master plan amendment is going to
[2:55:37] address as as we've talked uh quite a
[2:55:40] bit about. Um you know, the building we all love the design. I think the CAC
[2:55:44] did a a fantastic job, but there were
[2:55:46] some there was still some work to do
[2:55:48] regarding uh circulation uh access. How
[2:55:52] can we tie in potentially Laurel Grove?
[2:55:54] Uh do we have an additional access point
[2:55:57] on on Lagonas? Uh what about
[2:56:00] construction impacts? What about
[2:56:02] sequencing? And can we maybe use the the
[2:56:04] parking lot at Marin and Art Garden
[2:56:06] Center? Uh you know, those those are
[2:56:08] some questions that we may want to uh uh
[2:56:11] answer as we go through this process. Um
[2:56:14] so those are just some things for you
[2:56:16] for to think about as part of this uh
[2:56:18] agenda item tonight. That really
[2:56:20] concludes my presentation overview.
[2:56:22] There's quite a bit in the agenda
[2:56:23] report, but happy to entertain any
[2:56:25] questions that council uh may have about
[2:56:27] this item.
[2:56:29] questions.
[2:56:31] >> Okay. Um I understand the three meetings
[2:56:34] with the citizens advisory council,
[2:56:36] those will be three one-hour um online
[2:56:40] meetings.
[2:56:42] Where is there an opportunity for Marin
[2:56:44] Art and Gardens and um maybe the
[2:56:47] neighbors and others to also hear what's
[2:56:50] going on and to give feedback? Where
[2:56:52] does that take place? in the town
[2:56:55] council meetings
[2:56:57] >> currently that is
[2:57:00] that there is no specific uh community
[2:57:03] workshops identified in the work that's
[2:57:06] being performed by Gendler. Uh the
[2:57:09] vision in part was to uh be able to
[2:57:12] broadcast to that community as part of
[2:57:14] uh the these additional uh council
[2:57:16] meetings. Uh but if council desired,
[2:57:19] that's certainly something we could, you
[2:57:21] know, try to work with Gendler to
[2:57:23] identify if we want to have, you know,
[2:57:24] build in a community workshop uh as part
[2:57:27] of as part of this effort and there's
[2:57:29] value in that. But otherwise, we
[2:57:31] certainly uh could do that as part of a
[2:57:33] council meeting. Uh especially if it's a
[2:57:36] special date where uh there's no other
[2:57:38] agenda items, you know, uh through the town manager's office, uh
[2:57:43] invite uh our stakeholders to attend and
[2:57:46] participate uh you know, and and
[2:57:48] specifically invite them to do that. So
[2:57:51] there's there's some there's some
[2:57:52] opportunities to try to uh engage with our our stakeholders as well.
[2:57:58] >> Okay.
[2:58:00] But, you know, again, given the
[2:58:02] consolidated schedule and the desire to
[2:58:04] that was something that was, you know,
[2:58:07] kind of set aside because the the
[2:58:09] schedule is just it's is just uh so
[2:58:11] >> it's tight. Yeah.
[2:58:15] » Do you want to
[2:58:18] >> So, we hear a a lot of time um when
[2:58:21] we're asking about items that, you know,
[2:58:23] the staff, we don't have time for this.
[2:58:25] We're we're small staff.
[2:58:27] These are experts who've put together a
[2:58:31] plan in four months that I think the
[2:58:33] town took years to develop. Why not rely
[2:58:37] and use these amazing resources
[2:58:41] that you have at your disposal? Why why
[2:58:43] not just include them in your working
[2:58:45] group?
[2:58:46] >> Well, uh I I I think council member
[2:58:48] Salar, you know, tried to answer that
[2:58:51] question. Um
[2:58:53] you know, it gets to to project
[2:58:55] management. Uh you know, it's it's it's
[2:58:58] very um there there's a lot of work to
[2:59:00] do and
[2:59:01] >> No, no, but they're willing to raise
[2:59:03] their hands and help. So, I I don't I
[2:59:05] what I don't look at I look at this is group is you have at your
[2:59:09] disposal incredible volunteer experts
[2:59:11] that are highly motivated to get this
[2:59:14] project done and know it better than
[2:59:15] you. Why not just include if they're
[2:59:18] willing to be a part of the meetings and
[2:59:20] help move this project along, why
[2:59:21] wouldn't you just want them to be a part
[2:59:23] of the group? Well, I I'll give you an
[2:59:24] example uh and maybe this will shed some
[2:59:27] light um on your on your question. Uh
[2:59:30] one of the requests of our meeting this
[2:59:32] week was to validate the the space
[2:59:35] program that was prepared previously
[2:59:37] prepared by KPA. Um that is really an
[2:59:41] internal engagement process with both
[2:59:44] our police chief, our fire chief, the
[2:59:46] paramedic authority, uh the planning
[2:59:49] department, the town manager, the town
[2:59:51] clerk, and um in in my view certainly uh
[2:59:56] I think and I'm sure in Chris's view uh
[2:59:59] that's that's best handled by by staff
[3:00:02] uh you know to delegate that kind of you
[3:00:04] know internal stakeholder work to a
[3:00:07] group of outside I'm not saying to do
[3:00:09] that. I So the whole thing is you you
[3:00:11] want to have three extra meetings and we
[3:00:13] we're supposed to pay extra money for
[3:00:14] these extra meetings. Why not just have
[3:00:17] them part of the working group? They sit
[3:00:18] in the meeting there. I'm not asking you
[3:00:20] to delegate anything that they wouldn't
[3:00:22] do, but these people might be willing to
[3:00:24] help out in other areas or have
[3:00:26] expertise and be able to handle and help
[3:00:28] with the project. I I think as we read
[3:00:30] their their request um it was to ensure
[3:00:34] that their professional input is
[3:00:36] received in a timely manner before other
[3:00:39] key decisions were made so that it you
[3:00:42] you're uh avoided having to kind of
[3:00:45] return back and you lose some time and
[3:00:48] so uh that that's why I think the
[3:00:50] structure was developed uh to to address
[3:00:53] you know specifically their their
[3:00:55] requests was to make sure they're prized
[3:00:58] you not on a on a on a you know a month
[3:01:02] a one month basis at council meetings.
[3:01:04] It's their prize on some of the critical
[3:01:07] uh updates that um uh are made by by
[3:01:12] Gendler as part of their work. And this
[3:01:14] is really about being strategic with
[3:01:16] both their time, Gendler's time and and
[3:01:19] our time uh and and and complete in
[3:01:23] completing the work. I think that's
[3:01:25] really the reflection. Um,
[3:01:27] >> so you think they would slow you down?
[3:01:29] >> I I think Well, I think there's an
[3:01:30] element of when you have additional uh I
[3:01:34] think as they they say uh too many cooks
[3:01:37] ruin the stew. Uh and you know that
[3:01:40] that's only an addage of course, but uh
[3:01:42] you know we we we were we were work our kickoff meeting it was we went to
[3:01:47] work very quickly. Uh I'm not sure
[3:01:50] that's of value to the CAC members uh in doing this kind of working stuff. uh
[3:01:56] that's really in my mind uh a staff's
[3:01:58] role. Uh but where there's a lot of
[3:02:01] value is on these kind of uh critical
[3:02:05] uh bigger picture uh items that you know
[3:02:09] like the blocking analysis, the massing,
[3:02:11] the site analysis where there there's
[3:02:14] going to be opportunities for some real
[3:02:16] critical feedback and input before you
[3:02:18] advance to that next stage. And I I I
[3:02:20] guess we see real value in that. Um and you know it's respectful of their
[3:02:25] time. It's respectful of Gendler's time.
[3:02:27] It's respectful of of staff's time.
[3:02:29] >> Okay. And one other question is just in
[3:02:31] the scope. Why was schematic design
[3:02:33] removed from the scope?
[3:02:35] >> Well well schematic design I think uh
[3:02:37] from my perspective I did not hear
[3:02:39] council uh consensus that schematic
[3:02:42] design was uh uh you know the direction
[3:02:46] was to include the schematic design. I
[3:02:49] know there was correspondence uh to that
[3:02:51] effect that there was a view that it was
[3:02:55] uh our intent was to um develop and
[3:03:00] complete the master planning process to
[3:03:03] provide a uh a a you know a complete
[3:03:07] plan uh provide the project description
[3:03:09] so we can begin SQUA and then uh very
[3:03:12] importantly to have a cost estimate that
[3:03:16] is going to support you know council's
[3:03:18] 's uh desire or or um inform council's
[3:03:24] question is about whether to place a
[3:03:26] measure on the ballot.
[3:03:28] >> Yeah. So I just to be on the schematic
[3:03:30] design point, the reason for it is to be
[3:03:32] able to come up with a good cost
[3:03:33] estimate. The schematic designs are very
[3:03:36] helpful for that.
[3:03:37] >> Um I just want to I just want to
[3:03:39] interject here is that the schematic
[3:03:42] design was not removed from the scope.
[3:03:44] It was never in there. the council we
[3:03:48] brought forward a request for proposals.
[3:03:51] It did not include that the council at
[3:03:54] length discussed this issue and there
[3:03:56] was not con council consensus to put
[3:03:58] schematic design um into the scope of
[3:04:02] work. So it was never there. Therefore
[3:04:04] it was not removed. So I just want to
[3:04:06] make sure you you understand that
[3:04:07] council member Salter. We did not remove
[3:04:09] >> it was in the Gendler contract and it
[3:04:10] was removed from the Gendler contract.
[3:04:12] >> No sir
[3:04:12] >> from the the original contract that they
[3:04:14] proposed was never
[3:04:15] >> No, sir. They responded to
[3:04:19] the requests for proposals document that
[3:04:21] the council
[3:04:23] approved at a council meeting
[3:04:26] >> and we when we um did bring the the uh
[3:04:30] RFP forward, there's a presentation that
[3:04:33] I remember outlined for council that
[3:04:35] there was opportunities to go beyond you
[3:04:38] know uh uh you know completing the
[3:04:41] master plan which maybe included some
[3:04:44] enhanced planning
[3:04:46] doing some more uh uh you know more
[3:04:48] detailed site work, not with the the
[3:04:51] belief that it's necessarily going to
[3:04:52] give us a better cost picture. It's
[3:04:55] really just going to provide you know
[3:04:57] more detailed site information uh for council's consideration. Uh but
[3:05:02] council uh did not opt for that that option that was presented. So we
[3:05:07] you know that that was not included. Um
[3:05:09] I I kind of actually liked it just from
[3:05:11] being a a planner. Uh but uh uh I again
[3:05:17] we we just I'm just saying that because
[3:05:18] we did provide council with that
[3:05:20] opportunity and and council we didn't
[3:05:22] get direction to include that in the in
[3:05:24] the RP.
[3:05:25] >> Okay. Thank you.
[3:05:27] >> Is it is it helpful that
[3:05:30] is it helpful to add some of that back
[3:05:33] to get better cost estimates? My
[3:05:35] understanding was that what we have now
[3:05:37] is is is a master plan update that
[3:05:39] doesn't move us closer to getting
[3:05:41] something on the ballot because we don't
[3:05:43] have a good enough cost estimate. So, is
[3:05:45] it possible to add back some of that to
[3:05:47] get a better cost estimate? Well, well,
[3:05:49] Mayor Mayor Prom, I guess, um, I I would
[3:05:51] just share with you, I think, in terms
[3:05:54] of our analysis and in discussions with
[3:05:57] Griffin Structures, uh, as well as
[3:05:59] other, uh, municipal uh, staff, uh,
[3:06:04] other city managers that we've had this
[3:06:06] discussion with regarding uh, how
[3:06:08] detailed do you get with your cost
[3:06:10] estimates? Uh, you know, ultimately the gold standard is you go out to bid
[3:06:16] and you know, sometimes if you don't
[3:06:18] have money in hand, that's that's a
[3:06:20] little that's a little late. Uh uh but
[3:06:22] that that there are so many
[3:06:24] uncertainties in the market regarding uh
[3:06:27] tariffs
[3:06:29] uh inflation rates uh you know material
[3:06:33] unknowns and uncertainties that even
[3:06:37] with schematic design. you're still
[3:06:40] going to have contingencies that aren't
[3:06:43] necessarily going to guarantee you a
[3:06:46] better number at the end of the day
[3:06:48] that's going to garner uh voter support.
[3:06:52] uh you know a lot of when municipalities
[3:06:55] bring forward measures for geo bonds for
[3:06:58] projects and capital facilities
[3:07:01] a big part of that is what does the
[3:07:03] picture look like and what are the
[3:07:05] services that is going to enable you
[3:07:07] know kind of a lot of those things that Joy spoke to uh it it there's uh
[3:07:14] it's not always necessarily
[3:07:16] uh just exact confidence around the cost
[3:07:20] of the project and of course council
[3:07:22] still has to make a decision around, you
[3:07:25] know, I think you mentioned it earlier
[3:07:27] this evening, council member Salter, is
[3:07:29] you the the the staff has this or the um
[3:07:33] the the the the town has this budget
[3:07:36] reserve and how do you want to factor
[3:07:39] that in in terms of, you know, what you
[3:07:41] ask the voters for? So there's there's
[3:07:44] some complexities around, you know,
[3:07:46] ultimately what your ask is of the
[3:07:48] voters and it's it's not all going to
[3:07:50] hinge on just how refined that cost
[3:07:53] estimate is going to be uh in terms of
[3:07:56] the uh you know delivering delivering
[3:07:58] the project. There's there's so
[3:08:02] what what we've been told based on
[3:08:03] expert input is having a planning level
[3:08:06] cost estimate building in appropriate
[3:08:08] contingencies is more than sufficient to be able to go to the voters to get
[3:08:14] their support uh for for a geo bond.
[3:08:18] >> I also have something to add to that. I
[3:08:20] think one thing we haven't talked about
[3:08:22] but it was on an earlier agenda item the
[3:08:25] alternative methods for contracting. The
[3:08:27] more Gensler starts designing this and
[3:08:30] doing more specific drawings, they are
[3:08:31] going to disqualify themselves from if
[3:08:33] the council later wants to do design
[3:08:35] build. That's just a fact. So with the
[3:08:38] more generic process that we're
[3:08:40] following now to get a cost estimate,
[3:08:43] they still will be able to build bid in
[3:08:45] the future on a design build if the
[3:08:46] council wants to go down that road. But
[3:08:48] if Gensler starts getting very specific
[3:08:50] about what this building looks like,
[3:08:52] they they can no longer bid bid under
[3:08:54] California state law on that design
[3:08:56] build ultimate project. So that's one of
[3:08:58] the other reasons why it's important to
[3:09:00] make sure we don't have a contract now
[3:09:03] that limits the council from using any
[3:09:05] architects in the future.
[3:09:09] So I have another question just
[3:09:13] why do you think this has become so
[3:09:15] controversial and such a big deal to
[3:09:17] have one or two uh CAC members at the at
[3:09:21] the what you call the project management
[3:09:24] meetings. I mean I I see it as just uh
[3:09:27] expertise, transparency, trust,
[3:09:30] oversight. It's just it's not to derail
[3:09:33] the process is not to take it longer,
[3:09:36] not to have it take longer. I don't I
[3:09:38] just don't understand. Why do you think
[3:09:39] it's become such a big deal? It seems so
[3:09:42] easy to me to say, "Great, let's all
[3:09:44] work together."
[3:09:46] >> Um, Mayor Prom, that is such a loaded
[3:09:48] question and it's not fair to ask a
[3:09:51] staff member. First of all, I'm not even
[3:09:53] sure it really is a question. So, um, we have come to the council. You have
[3:10:02] we brought you We have literally met
[3:10:05] with you probably 10 times in the last
[3:10:08] two and a half months with specific
[3:10:10] agenda items gotten specific direction
[3:10:13] from you attached the actual request
[3:10:16] proposals attached to the contract. You
[3:10:18] had the opportunity literally
[3:10:22] nine days ago the council was here at a
[3:10:25] special meeting. You had the contract
[3:10:28] attached the complete every single page
[3:10:30] of that contract was attached to the
[3:10:32] staff report. You could have you you had
[3:10:36] plenty of opportunity at that time, but
[3:10:38] you directed me to execute that
[3:10:41] agreement as is as it was attached,
[3:10:44] which I literally did. I think I signed
[3:10:46] it that night. It was executed
[3:10:48] definitely by the next day. Gendler, our
[3:10:50] project team, they immediately got to
[3:10:52] work. We had our first meeting um with
[3:10:55] us as staff on Monday. We had, as I
[3:10:58] mentioned earlier this evening, we had
[3:11:00] our fir we have we had homework. We had
[3:11:03] we have deadlines today. The this is the
[3:11:05] week that we're supposed to be um ve
[3:11:07] verifying the programming. So, and we
[3:11:11] are working very hard now that we have
[3:11:12] set up these special meetings with the
[3:11:14] council and you've set it aside on your
[3:11:16] very busy schedule. We got to have
[3:11:18] something we need to bring forward to
[3:11:19] you. And as you recall, Mayor Prom, when
[3:11:23] you and the mayor sat in with the
[3:11:25] interviews for three the three top
[3:11:28] architect engineering firms is that
[3:11:31] every single one of those firms, their
[3:11:33] project teams mentioned that it was
[3:11:35] critical for them to be able to get this
[3:11:38] project done in this aggressive time
[3:11:39] frame. It was critical that they had
[3:11:42] very fast decision making
[3:11:45] decisions made by the decision makers.
[3:11:48] And so one of the first questions this
[3:11:50] past Monday that the Gendler project
[3:11:52] team asked David and I was, "Okay, um,
[3:11:56] David, are David and Christa the the
[3:11:58] decision makers on this project?" And I
[3:12:01] immediately said, "Well, no, the council is the decision makers, and
[3:12:06] you have a lot of um, you have a lot of
[3:12:11] complex
[3:12:12] important decisions you're going to have
[3:12:14] to make, and we are going to be bringing
[3:12:16] them forward to you. We're doing it. You are the ones that put together this
[3:12:20] 12 12 week. It's I've been saying all
[3:12:24] along it is very aggressive. So, we're
[3:12:26] doing our best to meet it. Um
[3:12:31] I'm just going to sidestep the other
[3:12:33] issues, but you you do you do operate
[3:12:35] under a council manager form of
[3:12:37] government.
[3:12:38] >> I guess one question when there are some
[3:12:40] of the difficult tradeoffs um you know,
[3:12:43] do does the road connect to Laurel
[3:12:46] Grove? Do we do we have space for police
[3:12:49] parking? Some of those uh how do we how
[3:12:51] do we plan out the space? Will those be
[3:12:54] things that come to the council so we
[3:12:55] can share uh and the public can share
[3:12:58] opinions one way or the other or will
[3:13:00] those get decided in the project
[3:13:02] management meetings?
[3:13:06] » Um I Okay. Yes, absolutely. We have been
[3:13:10] telling the council all along when you had your April 29th meeting and
[3:13:15] again on May 6th and again on June 24th
[3:13:18] and on June 13th,
[3:13:21] these issues we have we have been the
[3:13:23] ones that have been bringing forward
[3:13:25] these highlighting these issues to the
[3:13:26] council that are issues that need to be
[3:13:29] addressed that are not in your preferred
[3:13:32] concept which is now the CAC concept. So
[3:13:36] absolutely, David and I are not going to
[3:13:38] be the ones that are saying,"Oh, let's
[3:13:40] get rid of that or let's do this." Those
[3:13:41] are council decisions that you need to
[3:13:43] make in a public setting so that you
[3:13:45] have the opportunity from hear from the
[3:13:47] public, not just from the CAC folks, but
[3:13:49] the rest of your residents.
[3:13:51] >> Thank you.
[3:13:56] » You have any questions, Terry?
[3:13:58] >> Questions?
[3:13:58] >> Bill, do you have any questions?
[3:14:02] » Okay. Um, any public comment, Dan?
[3:14:06] >> Yeah.
[3:14:11] » Do I introduce myself?
[3:14:15] >> Um, first of all, David, I really
[3:14:17] appreciate what you, you know, the
[3:14:19] consideration that you've given um to
[3:14:22] the letter that I wrote. The the intent
[3:14:25] of the letter was not to make things
[3:14:27] more complicated. actually um the design
[3:14:31] process in a lot of ways can be a way to
[3:14:33] bring people together and to build
[3:14:36] consensus around ideas. And this project
[3:14:40] as you guys know is a pretty contentious
[3:14:42] project. And I think that
[3:14:44] going through the first phase of work
[3:14:46] that we did on the CAC committee, what
[3:14:49] was apparent to me was the conversations
[3:14:52] that we had, the transparency,
[3:14:55] the expression of the different
[3:14:57] viewpoints and considering all those
[3:14:59] things and bringing them together
[3:15:02] ultimately got us to where we wanted to
[3:15:04] be. And I think the intent of of at
[3:15:07] least my letter was to continue that
[3:15:09] process. that design in itself is a way
[3:15:11] to bring people together. It's a way to
[3:15:14] consider different ideas. It's
[3:15:15] ultimately a way to get to better
[3:15:18] outcomes. It doesn't mean that we want
[3:15:21] to do project management. We don't want
[3:15:22] to do project management. But I think
[3:15:25] given the time constraints, there are a
[3:15:28] lot of very critical decisions that are
[3:15:30] going to have to be made, I think, in
[3:15:33] real time. There are certainly major
[3:15:36] decisions that need to be brought to
[3:15:37] town council, but there's going to be a
[3:15:38] lot of other things that are going to
[3:15:40] have to happen. And I think people who
[3:15:43] understand the why behind those
[3:15:45] decisions were made and participate in
[3:15:47] those decisions will ultimately support
[3:15:49] those decisions. And so I I think what
[3:15:53] you've got on the table right now
[3:15:55] actually is a good idea. I think it's a
[3:15:58] really good idea. Add two or three or
[3:16:00] whatever you think is appropriate.
[3:16:02] meetings where you've got critical
[3:16:04] issues, you want to talk it over, you
[3:16:06] want to get input of two or three people
[3:16:08] so that when we all walk away, we go to
[3:16:10] the town, we're talking to all the other
[3:16:12] residents. We're doing everything we can
[3:16:14] to support what's going on and saying,
[3:16:17] "Hey, yeah, look at this. Is it we we
[3:16:19] had to do this, you know, make this
[3:16:20] compromise, whatever it is, but
[3:16:22] ultimately I think it'll get us to a
[3:16:24] better place." And that's really what
[3:16:26] the intent is. Um, on the on the drawing
[3:16:30] side of the equation,
[3:16:32] it is an update of the master plan.
[3:16:34] That's exactly what Christa said. That's
[3:16:36] what went out was a a proposal to update
[3:16:39] the master plan. What what I think and
[3:16:43] I'd like to take schematic design off
[3:16:45] the table for a second because that's an
[3:16:47] architectural term and it has got a lot
[3:16:50] of, you know, content associated with
[3:16:52] it. Really what we need is a set of
[3:16:57] drawings that is going to get us closer
[3:16:59] to a construction estimate that we can
[3:17:02] hang our hat on. So I think it goes it
[3:17:06] isn't necessarily a full set of what I
[3:17:09] would call schematic drawings, but it
[3:17:11] does mean doing some detailed plans to
[3:17:14] make sure that the police department
[3:17:16] actually lays out properly. Make sure
[3:17:18] that the fire department, if we're going
[3:17:20] to do it, lays out properly. Make sure that the offices for
[3:17:24] the staff that we have the right number
[3:17:25] of offices. Do we have the right number
[3:17:27] of restrooms rather than just blocking
[3:17:30] the space? Actually doing some layouts
[3:17:32] which we would just call space planning
[3:17:35] to make sure that functionally
[3:17:37] everything works over and above that. We
[3:17:40] do need site plans. We do need floor
[3:17:43] plans. We need elevations of the
[3:17:46] building, some sections through the
[3:17:48] building and renderings and an outline
[3:17:51] specification
[3:17:53] that would get us to the point where
[3:17:54] instead of carrying, as David knows, you
[3:17:56] know, if we have a schematic block, you
[3:17:58] know, a set of block diagrams, we might
[3:18:01] carry a 20% contingency, maybe even a
[3:18:04] 25% contingency. But if we can get it a
[3:18:07] step further and add just another layer
[3:18:09] of detail, take that down to 10%. And I
[3:18:13] think or maybe 15% or whatever it is,
[3:18:15] whatever we agree based on the
[3:18:17] information we have that makes sense. I
[3:18:19] think from a town perspective, the other
[3:18:22] our our the other residents of the town,
[3:18:25] we want to be able to we don't want a
[3:18:27] lot of fluff in this. We want to make
[3:18:29] sure that this is as tight as we can so
[3:18:31] that when we do bring it forward, we're
[3:18:34] bringing forward the ideas. we make sure
[3:18:36] that the ideas work and we have a really
[3:18:38] good idea of what it's going to cost
[3:18:40] knowing that there are variables that we
[3:18:42] can't control. So I mean I would be an
[3:18:44] advocate of doing a little bit more
[3:18:46] work, not a full set of schematics. It
[3:18:48] doesn't preclude doing design build
[3:18:51] design assist whatever we want to do
[3:18:53] downstream. That information can be used
[3:18:56] any way that we want to use it moving
[3:18:57] forward, but it gets us closer to where
[3:18:59] we need to be in terms of getting the
[3:19:02] right kind of financing package put
[3:19:04] together for this project.
[3:19:10] So that's it. And that letter was from
[3:19:12] me, not the CAC, just so you know.
[3:19:16] >> Thanks, Dan.
[3:19:22] » Good evening. Mike Rosenbomb. Again, I
[3:19:24] have a novel idea for the town and one
[3:19:26] I'm very disappointed that our chartered
[3:19:27] financial analyst didn't think of, and
[3:19:29] that is asking for to pay for the
[3:19:32] $17,400
[3:19:34] and any ancillary costs they would like
[3:19:35] for additional meetings. They claim to
[3:19:37] have 2.1 million in pledges.
[3:19:40] Seems like a great place to come up with
[3:19:42] 17,500 for the meetings. Thank you.
[3:19:47] Any
[3:19:51] online comments?
[3:19:53] >> No one online mayor.
[3:19:54] >> Okay.
[3:19:55] >> So, we'll bring it back for further
[3:19:58] discussion. Um, I I think what you and
[3:20:02] Christa have outlined in terms of adding
[3:20:04] more meetings and more public outreach
[3:20:06] is really good and really helpful. Um,
[3:20:11] so I think that that was a great way to
[3:20:13] address the CAC's concerns. I'm also
[3:20:16] concerned, you know, if you allow the
[3:20:19] CAC to participate in project management
[3:20:22] meetings, then it seems like it's kind
[3:20:25] of a slippery slope. You need the the
[3:20:28] police chief and the fire chief and the
[3:20:30] paramedics and, you know, where do you
[3:20:32] stop? So, I think that the public
[3:20:35] meetings that count I I assume council
[3:20:38] can participate in those meetings, too,
[3:20:40] and we'll all learn a lot. I think
[3:20:42] that's a really good way to get the
[3:20:45] feedback on the big milestone issues
[3:20:47] that are there's going to be lots of
[3:20:50] tradeoffs and it's there's going to be
[3:20:52] really hard decisions that are going to
[3:20:53] have to be made and we want the public
[3:20:56] to weigh in. We want the CAC to weigh in
[3:21:01] um and help us figure out what the best
[3:21:03] decision is for the long term of the
[3:21:05] town. Um,
[3:21:09] I I I want to make sure that everyone's
[3:21:11] comfortable about the um planning that
[3:21:15] we're doing to make sure that we have as
[3:21:17] much confidence in the cost estimate as
[3:21:20] possible. Um, and so I just want to be
[3:21:24] sure that everyone's happy with the
[3:21:26] level of detail in the contract. I don't
[3:21:30] want to be sitting here in October, you
[3:21:32] know, scratching my head saying, "Well,
[3:21:35] we should have done more. This isn't enough." Um I think, you
[3:21:40] know, we want to have as much
[3:21:42] specificity as possible. We but we don't
[3:21:45] want to preclude Gensler from being um
[3:21:48] available to bid um in the long-term
[3:21:51] project. And and there are going to be
[3:21:53] tons of variables that are way beyond
[3:21:56] our control. So like are we still in a
[3:21:59] war, right? Gas, tariffs, etc. cost of
[3:22:02] copper. Um so I just think we if to the
[3:22:06] extent that we could have additional
[3:22:08] assurance perhaps from Gendler that the
[3:22:12] level of work that they're going to do
[3:22:14] is adequate to have the best cost
[3:22:17] estimate possible. Um that that would be
[3:22:20] helpful to me. And and mayor uh to your
[3:22:24] point on the cost estimation, we as part
[3:22:26] of our review of Gendler's scope of work
[3:22:30] and and certainly the other consultants,
[3:22:32] we we did verify that they all have
[3:22:35] professional cost estimators on their
[3:22:37] team and Gendler's scope does include
[3:22:40] that. And we we believe they that
[3:22:44] they're you know they they meet their
[3:22:45] professional requisites to uh you know
[3:22:49] uh provide us with a cost estimate
[3:22:51] that's going to uh be very meaningful
[3:22:54] for you know council's you know review.
[3:22:57] It's probably going to be you know a lot
[3:22:58] more detailed than than what was
[3:23:01] provided in the original facilities
[3:23:03] master plan. uh you know given the the
[3:23:06] um the type of of uh cost estimator
[3:23:09] that's being that's you know Gensler has
[3:23:11] included on their team.
[3:23:14] >> So I I I agree about the meetings. I
[3:23:16] think I think the more outreach uh the
[3:23:19] more participation is uh it benefits
[3:23:22] everyone. Um, it sounded like Dan was
[3:23:25] suggesting that the this process include
[3:23:28] a little bit more, not so much that we
[3:23:30] don't have the option of, you know, the
[3:23:32] progressive design bid, whatever, but
[3:23:35] that that that GE will do a little bit
[3:23:37] more to give us so that we would be in
[3:23:40] the be able to do a cost with a like a
[3:23:42] 15% contingency and not 25. So, is that
[3:23:46] something that's reasonable to to add on
[3:23:48] what small amount additional he he was
[3:23:51] mentioning? Um, I I'd like to answer
[3:23:54] this question. Um,
[3:23:56] if the council's priority is to have
[3:23:59] this done in 12 weeks, you need to stick
[3:24:02] to your scope of work that and the
[3:24:05] agreement that has already been
[3:24:07] executed.
[3:24:09] If the consensus of the council is to
[3:24:14] add a little bit more, and you know, I
[3:24:18] have greatest respect for Mr. whiny, but
[3:24:21] that's all a little vague. Okay,
[3:24:23] detailed planning, like what exactly
[3:24:26] does that mean? How does that translate
[3:24:29] into a specific scope of work? Because
[3:24:32] remember, part of the role of your
[3:24:34] professional staff is we track the
[3:24:38] money. We make sure that before we pay a
[3:24:42] bill that the work has been done and it
[3:24:45] has been done in accordance with your
[3:24:47] contract. So our scope of work is not
[3:24:50] vague. It's so if the consensus of the
[3:24:54] council is this evening that you are
[3:24:56] interested in doing a little bit more
[3:25:00] then what we will need to do as staff is
[3:25:04] we will need to go back. So work is
[3:25:06] going to stop.
[3:25:08] We're going to stop on this and then we
[3:25:10] need to go back and we need to spend
[3:25:13] time with the consultant team, come up,
[3:25:17] go do go back and forth. And it, let me
[3:25:19] tell you, doing getting this contract so
[3:25:21] that I could bring it back to you on
[3:25:23] August 4th was a huge lift. It's not
[3:25:27] going to happen by your next meeting on
[3:25:28] August. It's going to be maybe we could
[3:25:31] do it by September 10th. Maybe. then there's no way that you're going to
[3:25:35] get this done in the timeline. Now, if
[3:25:38] the timeline no if it doesn't matter to
[3:25:40] you anymore and the consensus of the
[3:25:42] council is you want us to do a little
[3:25:45] bit more then that's what we'll do and
[3:25:49] we'll have to come back and we'll you
[3:25:51] know it it'll just it'll just be a
[3:25:52] delay. So then I think you you it would
[3:25:56] behoove you to think is that delay
[3:26:00] what's the value of that delay? What's
[3:26:02] it going to get for you? But Christa, I
[3:26:04] don't agree with that. I mean, if we
[3:26:06] were working for 12 weeks and then we
[3:26:08] decided to extend the contract
[3:26:10] >> after the 12 weeks and add on layouts,
[3:26:14] it would just be an amendment to the to
[3:26:16] the contract to add more. So, I I don't know that we need to redo the
[3:26:20] whole thing, stop all the work, stop all
[3:26:22] the meetings. We're saying, you know,
[3:26:24] there may be a possibility down the road
[3:26:25] that we're expanding the scope as we go.
[3:26:29] And I I don't I don't I actually think
[3:26:31] it's a disservice not to have layouts
[3:26:32] done given that there's a lot of
[3:26:34] programming that needs to be for
[3:26:36] complicated police, fire, etc.
[3:26:38] >> So just today, David and I were in a
[3:26:42] meeting almost two hours going through
[3:26:45] the packet of information that the
[3:26:47] Gendler Project team gave us and our
[3:26:49] comments are due today because we know
[3:26:50] what David's going to be doing before he
[3:26:52] goes to bed tonight is making sure he
[3:26:54] puts together the comments from all. So
[3:26:56] David and I are going through all these
[3:26:58] tables and when Mr. Weiny mentioned an
[3:27:01] example of restrooms, we spent a
[3:27:04] considerable amount of time because what
[3:27:06] Gendler had put together only had one
[3:27:08] restroom for this building and I was
[3:27:09] like wait got to have more than one
[3:27:11] restroom for this building because when
[3:27:13] we have a break there's usually more
[3:27:14] than one person that has to use the
[3:27:16] restroom. I mean we are going through
[3:27:19] lots of detail already because we need
[3:27:23] to get this done. and Gendler gives us
[3:27:24] assignments and we need to do our part.
[3:27:27] So if it was a specific thing like at
[3:27:29] towards the end if something else is
[3:27:31] needed the contract that we have with
[3:27:34] Gendzo right now would allow us on a
[3:27:36] time and materials basis to do something
[3:27:40] you know something as specific and if
[3:27:42] it's something really specific I I feel more comfortable as a town
[3:27:46] manager saying okay you know it's become
[3:27:49] apparent in this process because
[3:27:51] remember
[3:27:53] this this this concept includes cludes
[3:27:56] looking at reusing a building, right?
[3:27:58] There's a lot of unknowns. So maybe
[3:28:01] something does come up in this process
[3:28:04] that I could just quickly under my
[3:28:07] purchasing authority
[3:28:09] um amend the scope of work and get done,
[3:28:12] right? But that's specific. But this
[3:28:14] whole thing about a little bit more, no,
[3:28:18] I'm not comfortable adding on a that
[3:28:22] such a vague scope of work. I'm going to
[3:28:24] bring that back to the council. So, I
[3:28:27] even if we can still do a little bit of
[3:28:29] stuff now, it's not going to be like we
[3:28:32] are charging forward right now because
[3:28:34] the council told us 12 weeks.
[3:28:41] » Oh. Um,
[3:28:45] » for now
[3:28:45] >> I did, but it's okay.
[3:28:47] >> If I if I can add, mayor,
[3:28:49] >> can we just let the council talk for a
[3:28:51] minute? I just we're never going to get
[3:28:52] out of here if if we can't all share our
[3:28:54] thoughts.
[3:29:01] » Um
[3:29:03] I think it I I think it would be
[3:29:06] advantageous to do I'm sorry about that.
[3:29:08] Um
[3:29:11] it would make sense. I mean doing space
[3:29:14] plans is not that complicated. They're
[3:29:16] going to do the team is already going to
[3:29:18] be working on block plans. So, they're
[3:29:21] going to have how much space we have for
[3:29:23] the police department or office space or
[3:29:26] whatever. taking that the next step to
[3:29:29] do some sketches to show
[3:29:32] conceptually where do the offices go?
[3:29:34] How many offices do we have? How many
[3:29:36] bathrooms do we have? Do we have locker
[3:29:38] rooms? Do we have shared locker rooms?
[3:29:40] Where you know all the sort of the the
[3:29:42] next level of detail in terms of making
[3:29:45] sure that that building works is not
[3:29:47] that complicated. It isn't that
[3:29:50] complicated, but it goes a long ways to
[3:29:54] having the people who are looking at it,
[3:29:55] who care about these things, really
[3:29:58] understanding that it works other than
[3:30:01] showing them a block of space for a
[3:30:03] police department. Is interesting
[3:30:05] because when we had the police chief
[3:30:07] here, he was saying, "I need an evidence
[3:30:10] room and I need a place for to for
[3:30:13] weapons and I need, you know, this
[3:30:14] storage and I have drug store." all
[3:30:17] those kinds of things that he was
[3:30:18] talking about. He's absolutely right. We
[3:30:20] got to make sure that those things are
[3:30:22] taken care of. So, so all I'm saying is
[3:30:24] that and I'm speaking as an architect
[3:30:26] now, not Gensler or any that doing the
[3:30:29] space planning is not that complicated.
[3:30:31] The from an architectural standpoint,
[3:30:35] we already will have asbuilts of the
[3:30:38] drawing of the buildings. So doing
[3:30:40] elevations of the buildings to
[3:30:42] understand how much window area do we
[3:30:45] have, where are the windows located, you
[3:30:48] know, are we going to have those outside
[3:30:50] decks? Are, you know, what kind of roofs
[3:30:52] do we have to repair versus, you know,
[3:30:56] new roofs or whatever it may be. the
[3:30:58] elevations of the building, just some
[3:31:01] plans of the building, a section through
[3:31:03] the building. So really structurally how
[3:31:05] it works goes a long ways for a cost
[3:31:08] estimator to be able to say, "Okay, I
[3:31:11] get it right. I understand, you know,
[3:31:13] what needs to be done versus doing block
[3:31:15] plans." That's all I'm saying. Well, you
[3:31:17] can we can do block, you know, we can do
[3:31:19] block plans. We can do exactly what
[3:31:20] we're saying, but we're going to have to
[3:31:22] carry a bigger contingency, right? You
[3:31:25] would have to say that. I know you got
[3:31:26] to say you have to have a bigger
[3:31:27] contingency. The more detail you have,
[3:31:30] the better the cost estimate. I'm more
[3:31:32] concerned about
[3:31:34] the constituencies out there who need to
[3:31:37] be assured that everything is working
[3:31:38] the way that they want it to work in
[3:31:40] order to support this and get the kind
[3:31:42] of community behind this to get this
[3:31:45] approved. And that's really what it's
[3:31:47] like that next level of detail, whatever
[3:31:50] you want to call it, but enough
[3:31:51] information that they can go out there
[3:31:53] and say, "Yeah, this is it. you know,
[3:31:55] this works. This is didn't get exactly
[3:31:57] what we wanted, but this looks like it's
[3:31:59] going to work and let's move forward
[3:32:01] with it. So, that's, you know, that's my
[3:32:04] two cents on it. I just don't think
[3:32:06] >> Can that be added on without a a project
[3:32:08] delay?
[3:32:09] >> Pardon me.
[3:32:10] >> Can that be added on without a project
[3:32:12] without
[3:32:13] >> They'd have to talk to Gensler and ask
[3:32:15] him. And I I think actually the the the
[3:32:18] question for Gensler would be based on
[3:32:21] what we've asked you to do in the scope
[3:32:23] of work right now and what we've
[3:32:24] outlined, do you think it's adequate to
[3:32:27] get a construction estimate and a cost
[3:32:29] estimate that we can hang our hat on to
[3:32:32] go forward with the bond?
[3:32:35] >> Okay. So that was already in the RFP.
[3:32:37] Pardon?
[3:32:38] >> That that was already in the RFP. That
[3:32:40] was in the RFP. that that was that was a
[3:32:43] goal of this of this exercise. We there
[3:32:47] is there is no one that is more
[3:32:50] concerned about making sure that this
[3:32:53] project meets our operational needs.
[3:32:56] I've said to many of you, it's not my
[3:32:59] town. I don't I don't care what it looks
[3:33:00] like. It I want it to meet our
[3:33:03] operational needs and I want it to be
[3:33:06] something that we can afford and is is
[3:33:08] done in a fair legal manner. Um, and so
[3:33:12] that's what I'm I you know, and and when
[3:33:14] you
[3:33:15] >> want to say, it's funny because I think
[3:33:16] I feel like we're saying exactly the
[3:33:18] same.
[3:33:19] >> Exactly. But we already have this
[3:33:20] information when you use when you use
[3:33:21] the police chiefs. We already have I had
[3:33:24] a conversation just this afternoon with
[3:33:26] our police chief because he said he
[3:33:28] wanted to make sure that the locker
[3:33:29] rooms are for women and men. And I
[3:33:33] diligently we looked back. Absolutely.
[3:33:35] Because it's it's a law. We have to have
[3:33:37] it. So we've already done so much of
[3:33:39] that. And
[3:33:40] >> sure. I think the difference is Kristen,
[3:33:42] when you take that program to a block
[3:33:44] plan, it's a block of space. When you
[3:33:46] take it to the next level of space
[3:33:48] planning, sometimes that block of space
[3:33:50] works and sometimes it doesn't. And
[3:33:52] sometimes you got to start modifying
[3:33:54] your program to make it work, especially
[3:33:56] in a building that's going to be an
[3:33:57] adaptive reuse. It's not going to be
[3:34:00] perfect. You know, block plan and space
[3:34:02] plan is one level of detail. the next
[3:34:03] level of detail just simply gives us
[3:34:06] more information to get us a better a
[3:34:08] better cost estimate and a better sense
[3:34:11] of what the scope is. That's all the I'm
[3:34:13] not saying we can't do it with a block
[3:34:14] plan. It makes sense you could. All I'm
[3:34:17] saying is that I guarantee you the cost
[3:34:18] estimators are going to carry a larger
[3:34:20] cons contingency based on a block plan
[3:34:23] than they will detail space planning.
[3:34:26] That's all. So,
[3:34:32] » yep.
[3:34:38] » Well, all of us all of us agreed to the
[3:34:41] contract as it was written on August
[3:34:45] 4th. Correct.
[3:34:47] We read it. We agreed to it. Well, I I
[3:34:49] actually had several questions about it,
[3:34:51] but was told that if we try to change
[3:34:53] it, it'll be weeks to get it going back
[3:34:55] and forth and then it's better to to
[3:34:57] start with this and if there are
[3:35:00] anything we want to adjust, we could possibly adjust moving
[3:35:03] forward. So, that's where I kind of feel
[3:35:05] like we are now with anyway, I didn't
[3:35:08] want to interrupt you. Go ahead.
[3:35:08] >> No, it's okay. No, it was a question
[3:35:10] that I asked. I asked the question. So,
[3:35:12] yeah, I didn't I did not get that
[3:35:14] information. I read it. It made sense to
[3:35:16] me. I supported it. So, um I would
[3:35:21] really like us to move ahead. I keep
[3:35:23] worrying about this delay, that delay. I
[3:35:27] mean, this has been We've had delays for
[3:35:30] how many years now with this uh Yes.
[3:35:33] Right. Exactly. for a long time. Let's
[3:35:36] move forward. Let's uh deal with the
[3:35:39] contract as it's written.
[3:35:42] Uh let's add the additional six meetings
[3:35:45] that Gendler would have with the three
[3:35:48] would be with the citizens advisory
[3:35:50] group which I think is a great idea.
[3:35:53] There's three more town council meetings
[3:35:55] that's thrown in. My my caveat was I
[3:35:59] would trust the staff to figure out a
[3:36:02] way to make sure that those other
[3:36:03] stakeholders,
[3:36:05] not just the citizens advisory council,
[3:36:08] but the other stakeholders have an
[3:36:10] opportunity, whether that's at a council
[3:36:12] meeting or one of those three meetings
[3:36:15] is just for the council is set aside for
[3:36:17] other stakeholders. I want to make sure
[3:36:20] you've got the stakeholders
[3:36:22] uh covered and not just CAC.
[3:36:26] So, I I agree with all of that, but in
[3:36:29] addition, you know, I'm swayed by Dan's
[3:36:31] comments about space planning could be
[3:36:33] useful and it isn't and it's not that
[3:36:36] hard to add on and it will give us a
[3:36:38] better sense of how well this design
[3:36:41] functions and a cost estimate and it it
[3:36:44] can be added on without a delay. We
[3:36:46] don't have to stop the pro we don't have
[3:36:48] to stop anything to add what it what's
[3:36:51] he described as space planning towards
[3:36:53] the end of this 12 weeks. What does that
[3:36:55] mean? It won't be It's not a hard It
[3:36:57] won't take a lot of time. What does that
[3:36:59] mean? It won't take a lot of time. It's
[3:37:02] not hard to do. What does that really
[3:37:04] mean?
[3:37:05] >> I mean, I'd ask Dan, but it sounded like
[3:37:07] it wasn't, you know, a major addition.
[3:37:09] We'd have to hire us.
[3:37:22] » He needs to speak up there at the mic.
[3:37:26] >> Well, he was saying to ask Gensler, do
[3:37:28] we think what we're doing now is
[3:37:29] adequate or should we add in space
[3:37:30] planning? Maybe that's the way to go.
[3:37:34] So I I would like to first start off
[3:37:37] with the space planning is sort of not
[3:37:39] on this item. It's not in the staff
[3:37:41] report. I think we can address the space
[3:37:45] planning later. Like it doesn't tonight
[3:37:47] need to be determined while you're doing
[3:37:50] a project. You can always add things and
[3:37:52] amend them. And I think Christa, you you just said, "Hey, I want to come back
[3:37:57] to you for a big thing." So let's do
[3:37:59] that at another time. We have tons of
[3:38:01] meetings coming up. we can decide
[3:38:03] whether we want to add space planning or
[3:38:05] not. I don't think it needs to be done
[3:38:06] tonight. The question before us tonight
[3:38:09] is how do we integrate the CAC into this
[3:38:13] process? That's really what this item is
[3:38:15] about.
[3:38:16] >> I appreciate the offer for three
[3:38:18] meetings. I think what is clear and the
[3:38:21] fact that we keep asking Dan to go speak
[3:38:23] at the mic because we care what he has
[3:38:25] to say is the CAC isn't magic or some
[3:38:30] constituent. They are the group that
[3:38:32] created this plan that we all seem to
[3:38:34] have adopted and we're sort of trying to
[3:38:37] move forward without them seems
[3:38:38] ridiculous. These people are experts.
[3:38:41] They're willing. I mean, the fact that
[3:38:43] they're just here tonight at 9:30 and
[3:38:45] good to see you too, Mr. Cool. You know,
[3:38:48] is showing a dedication to this town
[3:38:50] that we need to really embrace. I think
[3:38:52] they should be at every meeting. I think
[3:38:53] that they this group has come together
[3:38:56] with a great plan. Why would we exclude
[3:38:57] them from any meeting? It just it makes
[3:38:59] no sense to me. I don't think they're
[3:39:01] going to slow you down. I think they're
[3:39:02] going to add so much value. Why would we
[3:39:04] not take it? You have literally some of
[3:39:05] these the most experts that you have in
[3:39:08] the world are sitting right in this
[3:39:10] room. So, just include them in the
[3:39:12] meetings. I don't think they're going to
[3:39:14] ruin it. I actually think they're going
[3:39:15] to help make the plan work better
[3:39:17] because they've already come this far.
[3:39:19] So, why would we just handcuff them?
[3:39:21] Just bring them into the meetings and if
[3:39:23] they're annoying or they're doing
[3:39:25] things, you just say, "Hey, thank you."
[3:39:27] Well, uh, I think you can manage a
[3:39:29] meeting very well, town manager Johnson.
[3:39:31] I'm not
[3:39:32] >> two of them are running for council, and
[3:39:34] you really expect that staff is going to
[3:39:35] go, "Oh, council, council candidates,
[3:39:38] you know, I don't like what you're
[3:39:40] saying. I don't like what your tone is."
[3:39:42] >> Okay, first of all, that's impossible.
[3:39:44] >> First of all, there's ways, let me
[3:39:45] speak. It is my turn. Is that you, you
[3:39:49] know, we're not saying you have to have
[3:39:50] all 10 members. Maybe it's two or three
[3:39:53] of them attend. I don't know. is choose.
[3:39:55] >> No, I I think it's worth a discussion
[3:39:57] with them about, hey, I think obviously
[3:39:59] Mr. Weiny is got everybody's support to
[3:40:03] be there. Maybe it's two or three other
[3:40:05] people from that committee that want to
[3:40:06] come and meet. And guess what? They're
[3:40:08] busy people. I mean, they maybe can't
[3:40:11] even attend all the meetings. Maybe they
[3:40:12] send one representative. I just don't
[3:40:14] know why we wouldn't include them in
[3:40:16] this process. It seems sort of foolish.
[3:40:19] Like, they've gotten us to this point.
[3:40:20] let's like use them and then uh move
[3:40:24] forward. You just setting up three extra
[3:40:26] meetings doesn't seem it seems like a
[3:40:28] total waste of time and money not to
[3:40:30] just have them at the meetings as an
[3:40:32] optional attendee to provide input. I
[3:40:35] just I don't get it.
[3:40:37] >> I I think I think we're kind of beating
[3:40:39] this horse dead. It seems like there's
[3:40:42] consensus to embrace
[3:40:44] >> haven't even heard from Bill. Well, I
[3:40:45] just let me just summarize because I
[3:40:48] think we heard from Dan that the
[3:40:50] additional three meetings is a great
[3:40:52] solution. I mean, Dan agrees with that.
[3:40:55] So, I don't think we need to keep going
[3:40:57] around and around about whether the CAC
[3:41:00] or any other member should be part of
[3:41:02] the project management staff meeting,
[3:41:05] weekly meeting. Um, I think Christa came
[3:41:08] up with a really good solution to um,
[3:41:11] encompass the information and everyone's
[3:41:14] going to hear the information at the
[3:41:15] same time and be able to weigh in and
[3:41:18] it's ultimately the council who needs to
[3:41:19] decide. Um,
[3:41:22] and I agree on the what with what you're
[3:41:25] saying in terms of the um,
[3:41:28] the schematics or you know more detail
[3:41:30] or I I just I think from my standpoint I
[3:41:35] think it Christa, it would be great. Or
[3:41:38] David, if you could just say to the
[3:41:41] Gensler people, hey, is this going to be
[3:41:44] enough? I know what's in the contract,
[3:41:47] but I we don't want to be sitting here
[3:41:50] in October and having someone say, well,
[3:41:53] you know, you didn't do enough work. The
[3:41:54] contract was too limited. The
[3:41:56] contingency is too big. And we have to
[3:42:00] be flexible and nimble. and that this
[3:42:02] issue I think it just is is a 15-minute
[3:42:05] conversation with the Gensler people.
[3:42:08] Yes, we have confidence in how this is
[3:42:10] going to go down or maybe we need to add
[3:42:13] a little bit a little amendment to the
[3:42:16] contract to encompass a little more
[3:42:19] detailed planning. As I mentioned, there
[3:42:21] is already there's already language in
[3:42:25] the existing contract which states that
[3:42:28] if we need additional services, we have
[3:42:32] that ability to do that.
[3:42:34] >> That's great. I just don't want to be I
[3:42:36] don't want to be in like October 1st
[3:42:40] freaking out that we need this
[3:42:41] additional information. And I think we
[3:42:43] should ask right now and then if we
[3:42:46] don't need a great if we do need it then
[3:42:48] it can proceed in parallel with this
[3:42:50] other work that's going on so that when
[3:42:52] we come to October 22nd or whatever the
[3:42:56] date is we're ready.
[3:42:58] >> So the RFP clearly stated that was the
[3:43:02] town council's goal. We asked the
[3:43:04] consultants to tell us to give us a
[3:43:08] proposal for what they thought that they
[3:43:10] needed to do to get to that point.
[3:43:13] So, um, it's not a good negotiating
[3:43:16] strategy to go to a consultant and say,
[3:43:21] "Are we paying you enough? Are we giving
[3:43:23] you enough hours? How much more can we
[3:43:25] pay you?" So, I absolutely I'm more than
[3:43:28] happy to answer ask them that question.
[3:43:30] But there's also I don't think you're
[3:43:32] going to get the certainty that you're
[3:43:33] looking for, mayor.
[3:43:34] >> I think we're never we're never I agree.
[3:43:36] We're never going to have perfect
[3:43:37] certainty. there's going to be a
[3:43:38] contingency for all the reasons that
[3:43:40] David said in addition to, you know,
[3:43:43] trying to rehab a very old building. Um,
[3:43:48] but
[3:43:49] and and Gendler is our architect and you
[3:43:53] know, when I was a lawyer, if my client
[3:43:56] asked me something, I had to be ethical
[3:43:58] and I had to give an honest answer. And
[3:44:01] so, I have confidence that if you ask
[3:44:04] Gensler, they're not they're not going
[3:44:05] to be like kaching kaching kaching.
[3:44:07] they're going to be like, you know,
[3:44:10] maybe we need to do a little bit more or
[3:44:12] maybe we don't and we don't want to
[3:44:14] disqual qualify ourselves by doing
[3:44:16] schematics and not being able to, you
[3:44:18] know, bid for the for the penultimate
[3:44:20] project. This is just a small little
[3:44:22] project. I just want us to be as
[3:44:25] prepared as we possibly can. Maybe
[3:44:27] they'll say, you know what, Christa,
[3:44:28] this contract is perfect. We're going to
[3:44:30] have so much information and our cost
[3:44:32] estimators, our cost estimators are
[3:44:35] going to be perfectly satisfied and the
[3:44:37] contingency is going to be a reasonable
[3:44:39] contingent contingency that every other
[3:44:42] project is going to have. We're not
[3:44:43] going to be an outlier. But, you know, I
[3:44:46] think if people are telling us this now,
[3:44:48] we we need to address this and and be
[3:44:52] nimble and, you know, if we need a
[3:44:54] little amendment to the contract, great.
[3:44:56] I mean, this is the biggest project that
[3:44:58] this town has done since 1927.
[3:45:01] And you know, I don't want to shoot
[3:45:04] ourselves in the foot, but I think the
[3:45:05] council would be willing to pay more now
[3:45:09] to have more certainty later to be
[3:45:12] assured of passing a general obligation
[3:45:14] bond and have our citizens have
[3:45:16] confidence in what we're doing. So, I
[3:45:18] don't think it hurts to ask the
[3:45:20] question. I have full confidence that
[3:45:22] you and David can ask the right
[3:45:24] questions and you know come back with
[3:45:27] whatever answer and maybe it's just
[3:45:29] within your spending authority and you
[3:45:31] can amend the contract.
[3:45:32] >> It's space planning we're talking about.
[3:45:34] Is that what what
[3:45:35] >> Yeah.
[3:45:36] >> Okay.
[3:45:37] >> So, um I I'm absolutely David and I can
[3:45:42] ask them more detailed questions about
[3:45:44] their cost estimate. Um I I want to let
[3:45:47] the council know though
[3:45:49] we cannot maintain this schedule if we
[3:45:53] continue to have these fire drills by
[3:45:55] the council every week when you when we
[3:45:59] are continuously faced with all of a
[3:46:02] sudden oh my god right before the
[3:46:03] meeting we have to sc you know it's we
[3:46:07] cannot get our work done we cannot get
[3:46:09] our work done so if what happens at the
[3:46:12] next you know on the next meeting if I
[3:46:14] have one or two council members are like
[3:46:17] we because you have a certain member of
[3:46:19] the public in your ear and you want us
[3:46:22] to amend the contract and we have to
[3:46:25] stop what we're doing and we have to
[3:46:28] figure out okay what exactly are they
[3:46:30] want us to do what does it mean how much
[3:46:33] it will it cost can they do it and and
[3:46:35] you have to keep in mind it's not just
[3:46:36] us just this past Monday we spent an we
[3:46:40] had an hour meeting with our Gendler
[3:46:42] project team very important kickoff
[3:46:43] team. We spent half the time talking
[3:46:47] about how doing this doing these
[3:46:49] additional um meetings. Half of the time
[3:46:53] and then we're one of many clients they
[3:46:56] have. So the meeting was done and we
[3:46:58] couldn't even get through. We couldn't
[3:47:00] get through it because all of a sudden
[3:47:02] we're completely changed because you had
[3:47:04] one community send you a letter at 7:45
[3:47:08] on Monday morning and now we're all in a
[3:47:11] roller coaster. So I really urge you to
[3:47:17] let us get through this. Let us let
[3:47:19] Gendler do their work. Let us do what we
[3:47:23] need to do. We have assignments that we
[3:47:26] have to do. We have that we had um a
[3:47:29] consultant here today um doing laser scanning and we have to work on
[3:47:36] getting you know we we are obligated to
[3:47:38] do all these things. We can't do it if
[3:47:41] we're continuously responding to council
[3:47:45] member lastm minute
[3:47:47] changing direction. So, you know, I I
[3:47:51] just think that we all want the best
[3:47:54] project possible and and we all want
[3:47:56] this to succeed and if people are
[3:47:59] telling us things, we we kind of have a
[3:48:02] duty to raise it so that, you know, the project is successful and the bond
[3:48:08] passes and and I I really understand and
[3:48:11] appreciate, you know, the the scheduling
[3:48:14] and the ball juggling, etc. Hopefully,
[3:48:17] this won't keep happening, but our our
[3:48:21] all of our goals is the same. We want
[3:48:23] this building to be built to accommodate
[3:48:27] all the functions that may or may not
[3:48:29] happen and using the beautiful design
[3:48:32] that Gendler and Dan Weiny has proposed.
[3:48:35] So, there, you know, there's going to be bumps in the road
[3:48:40] and we have we we all have to be
[3:48:43] flexible. Um, and you know, I think you
[3:48:47] just need to have a conversation with
[3:48:49] Gendler and, you know, kick the tires a
[3:48:53] little bit. And may maybe this isn't
[3:48:54] necessary. Maybe it's already
[3:48:55] encompassed, but maybe it needs to be.
[3:48:58] That's that's all that we need to do. I
[3:49:00] think I I I don't think anyone's trying
[3:49:02] to make a mountain out of a molehill.
[3:49:04] We're just trying to, you know, do the
[3:49:07] best thing that we can. So, Bill, did
[3:49:11] you want to say anything?
[3:49:13] Well, I you know I I appreciate
[3:49:16] everybody's concern, but sometimes, you
[3:49:20] know, you can overthink things and
[3:49:22] sometimes you can spend too much time
[3:49:24] planning because everything's going to
[3:49:26] change anyway. And I, as we've been
[3:49:29] discussing this, I've had this sort of,
[3:49:31] you know, reflection on when I led teams
[3:49:34] of attorneys and everybody wanted to
[3:49:36] have their two cents and the client
[3:49:38] wanted me to meet with them every
[3:49:40] morning and so forth. But, you know, as
[3:49:42] the lead trial counsel, you've got to be
[3:49:44] ready to go and put put witnesses on the the stand. And so, I I have some
[3:49:50] sympathy for Kristen. She's got a huge
[3:49:52] scheduling process and and uh I I do
[3:49:56] think there's a there's a danger of too
[3:49:58] many cooks in the kitchen here. I just
[3:50:00] think we need to get going. I like I
[3:50:02] like that plan of the you know the three
[3:50:04] additional meetings and I think we
[3:50:06] should get going and I I think that we
[3:50:09] will we probably will change some of our
[3:50:11] approach as we go along as we get more
[3:50:14] feedback. But trying to plan it all in
[3:50:16] advance and anticipate it. My experience
[3:50:18] in real estate and in trial work is
[3:50:21] plans are good. You should have a plan,
[3:50:23] but you should realize that you will
[3:50:25] have a different plan when you get to
[3:50:26] the end of it. That's just the way it
[3:50:27] goes. I don't mean to sound cynical, but
[3:50:30] that's just my experience. And I do have
[3:50:32] a lot of it.
[3:50:34] >> And I just I mean I don't think we're
[3:50:37] responding to just like a a community
[3:50:40] member. I mean, we're responding to I
[3:50:42] mean lit literally the architect of the
[3:50:45] whole plan who has a lot of experience.
[3:50:47] So I I think I think you know the more
[3:50:51] we hear from everyone who's involved and
[3:50:54] has experience from town staff, town
[3:50:56] planner, architects, the better off
[3:50:59] we'll be.
[3:51:03] » Yeah. I mean I I'm just going to I like
[3:51:05] it seems like everyone's on a consensus
[3:51:07] for three meetings, but there's the
[3:51:10] elephant in the room is we have
[3:51:12] incredible talent led by Dan Weiny and
[3:51:15] they just need to be incorporated. So
[3:51:17] that when there when we have to hear
[3:51:19] from very valid concerns that aren't
[3:51:22] being incorporated in this process,
[3:51:23] we're going to bring it up and I that's
[3:51:25] our duty.
[3:51:26] >> Well, probably the earlier things are
[3:51:28] incorporated, the better. So if you know
[3:51:29] if we'd heard a few days ago or maybe at
[3:51:32] the day of the contract, you know, um
[3:51:35] what is it called? Space planning should
[3:51:36] be part of it, we could have thought
[3:51:38] about it. I think again it it takes a
[3:51:40] lot of conversation and a lot of
[3:51:42] discussion to kind of adapt as we move
[3:51:45] forward with what's a great contract and
[3:51:47] a great architect firm, but I think
[3:51:49] there will be some back and forth and
[3:51:51] changes as things come up. Like Dan
[3:51:54] saying, space planning is helpful. So,
[3:51:56] we try to fit it in. I think
[3:51:59] all I have to say is let's get going.
[3:52:05] I agree with that. Okay.
[3:52:09] Um,
[3:52:12] >> do we need anything? Do we need a
[3:52:14] motion? Do we need anything?
[3:52:15] >> No, we don't need no motion. I think we
[3:52:16] have enough direction.
[3:52:18] >> You have enough direction.
[3:52:19] >> We have enough direction to move
[3:52:20] forward. Thank you.
[3:52:21] >> Okay,
[3:52:23] then we are moving to item number 18. No
[3:52:27] action items. Um, council
[3:52:29] correspondence,
[3:52:32] future council items, anybody?
[3:52:37] And lastly, council member participation
[3:52:39] at the communication table at the post
[3:52:42] office on September 10.
[3:52:50] » Were you in no show today?
[3:52:52] >> I forgot.
[3:52:54] too. I didn't do a reminder.
[3:52:57] >> Um well
[3:52:59] >> I can't. So help me out.
[3:53:01] >> You guys can tell me later um if you are
[3:53:04] a available on September 10th. I I
[3:53:07] should be able to do it. I'm just seeing
[3:53:08] I should be able to do it number 10.
[3:53:12] >> Okay. Um the last Oh, meeting evaluation
[3:53:15] number 19
[3:53:18] >> comments.
[3:53:21] » Was what?
[3:53:23] >> It was
[3:53:24] >> a little heated. And I I think I would
[3:53:27] just recommend that we be careful. Ben,
[3:53:29] you're usually pretty good about
[3:53:31] reminding us. Yes.
[3:53:32] >> Don't talk over somebody else. If
[3:53:35] somebody's talking, do not let them
[3:53:37] finish. Do not talk over them. And I
[3:53:40] think we should also be pretty
[3:53:42] thoughtful about how long we each speak,
[3:53:45] too.
[3:53:46] >> So,
[3:53:48] I did think it was helpful, Julie, when
[3:53:50] you know, we we made comments and then
[3:53:52] we commented after our comments because
[3:53:53] I think for some of these controversial
[3:53:55] issues, you want to hear what people
[3:53:57] say. You might change what you say. You
[3:53:59] might want to rebut what they say. And
[3:54:02] that I think that that for these issues
[3:54:04] I think that's helpful to have some back
[3:54:06] and forth, you know, sort of a row of us
[3:54:08] and then again. But I thought that was
[3:54:09] very helpful.
[3:54:12] >> Okay. Bill, do you have anything to add?
[3:54:15] >> No, I don't.
[3:54:17] >> Okay.
[3:54:17] >> I'm sleepless in Seattle. That's why I'm
[3:54:19] kind of drooping here.
[3:54:22] >> Good night, everyone.
[3:54:23] >> Thank you. Thank you for being online
[3:54:25] with us. We Okay. All right. We're
[3:54:27] ajourned. Thank you.
[3:54:28] >> Thank you, everybody. Bye bye.
[3:54:34] Oh god.